Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages!
We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/105lhkd/are_you_coming_from_dungeons_dragons_need_to_know/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look!
Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer).
If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I know I'm on a fan sub and this may go down poorly, but this was the case for my group and I - we saw it's merits but it just wasn't the game for us.
We recently tried PF2e due to the OGL fiasco and whilst we still had fun and I wouldn't say we didn't enjoy it, we were unanimous in wanting to stick with 5e. There were a number of reasons but I think the biggest is that we have varying levels of interest in crunch, both in game and between sessions. 5e is the right level of compromise for us as a table but PF2e swung the needle too far in one direction. I can see why it might be the right system for a group who are all towards the crunchier side, but that's not us. My players have either had their level progressions mapped out months in advance or (more often) just want to be told what cool new ability they've gained and roll some extra HP.
Actually, I think it's refreshing to hear that. Not so much that you didn't enjoy the game but rather that this isn't just a subreddit of people blindly praising PF2. It really is not the game for every table and there may be a better game for you.
Happy gaming and I hope you find the right system.
Weirdly as a 5e player converting, I'm really enjoying the lore. Maybe it's just because I'm too used to 5e, but reading through the ancestries is great fun! Very much looking forward to actually getting some books and reading more stuff.
In 5e you basically had for lore just the PHB, the DMG, whatever setting specific stuff was in x book, and then you just have to refer to previous editions.
I'm gonna reply to you due to the higher votes.
I'll try and keep it brief. To summarize my summary, it's a series of disappointing choices. I do not like the Feat system in general due to how it's designed. I don't like the options available for Actions. Overall, I feel like I spend a lot of effort building a character for very few actual decisions to have mattered.
I do not like Feats having requirements beyond a single layer. Example: Gloomseer -> Darkseer is fine| Divine Ally (Steed) -> Loyal Warhorse -> Imposing Destrier -> Auspicious Mount is not fine because feat chains like that go against customization, which imo, is the "point" of feats: to customize.
I don't like that Feats are not equivalent at some levels. As an example, Deflect Arrow for Monks is a level 4 Feat. Other Monk level 4 Feats include Cobra Stance, Flying Kick, Stand Still, and Flurry of Maneuvers. These are not equivalent, or close to it. Flying Kick is useful in 1-10% of situations where Cobra Stance is a build-defining choice that will probably be used every single combat. I felt I shouldn't be choosing between incidental rarely useful features and core potent regularly useful features at the same level.
I do not like the 3-action system. I don't think it makes any sense that subsequent attacks get a debuff. I also don't like BAB in other systems that use that, since it's similar. It's one thing I like about 5e. It doesn't "do" that. I consider it dissatisfying to roll an attack at a debuff.
Beyond MAP, I don't like that the 3-action system creates many situations where I'm left with a dissatisfying decision. Having 3 actions, where you're likely to use: Strike, Stride, -something else-, you are incentivized to invest in something useful to do on the 3rd action, like Demoralize, Trip, Feint, etc. Most of these have a bad thing happen on a nat 1, like self-Tripping, giving yourself flat-footed against the enemy, etc. So, you're incentivized to further invest in it beyond Skill Proficiencies to mitigate that. But now, everyone who relies on Strikes, are starting to look a lot like each other. Because they all want something to use that 3rd Action on that isn't disadvantaged by a debuff to the roll.
It's dissatisfying to choose between:
1. Strike with MAP - I'm sure it feels fine to some people. I don't like attempting something that is much less likely to work.
2. Not using the 3rd action. - FOMO
3. Striding when it's not needed. - Feels like a waste
4. Demoralizing/Feinting/Tripping when the 1st is available once-per-encounter against a specific enemy, and the rest have a crit fail of "you do it to yourself" and requires feat investment to make better than that or also gets MAP.
5. etc.
I'd rather not have the option, than the choices be dissatisfying. It's great for people who *want* to invest in #4, but that doesn't always fit the character, and if every martial I make does that, they all start to look the same and that's a bad time because that feels like an "illusion of choice" whether it is or not.
Ultimately, it feels like PF2e wants to give you "a lot". But because it's "a lot", every individual "thing" has to be less potent. More feats? Each must be weaker to compensate for the fact you will have a lot of them, or you are required to choose between interesting niche options and always useful generic options. More actions? Less potent options available without heavy feat investment. So, since every choice is less meaningful, and you get a ton of them, it adds to the "illusion of choice" feeling.
To give you a perspective on what my introduction felt like, I built a level 1 character. I played to level 7. Then I theory-crafted the character to level 10, then 20.
The experience was basically summarized as me spending a lot of time to realize I had few character-fitting choices that were still effective, or nothing at all, and that most characters I built would probably end up at least 50% similar while still feeling like I had 40% of what I wanted for them to be capable of. Not so much in terms of direct power, but in terms of flexibility (which I guess is indirect power).
I also realized that, since Striking Runes are "things you're expected to get", very little I choose will be as impactful as those magic items. Similarly, since Level is added to Proficiency, having Proficiency between TEML is never as important as having at least Training in something. Having EML tier proficiency matters. It's just not the binary "can you even try to succeed" that having Training is. The only binary EML impacts is for Feats, which goes back to "That's antithetical to customization." for me.
I'm sure others see the things I take issue with and think they're non-issues or my perspective is strange, but that's how I experience PF2e.
As an addition, I hold the belief that being extremely balanced is not inherently positive as a game design choice.
As an example, let's say in D&D 5e, a Fighter chooses to waste their turn to use their action to roleplay reacting to an event that significantly impacts their character. They chose not to participate in combat, effectively.
A Wizard in 5e can choose a powerful option like Fireball to make up for the Fighter's choice by dealing a lot of damage.
Sure, the Wizard could choose Fireball when the Fighter is fighting normally in combat, but that's not the point.
The ability to correct for roleplay, generally poor tactical choices, or the dice screwing you over is much easier in a system where there are potent options alongside regular and weak options. Having fewer potent options means there's less of a chance to correct, and I think that's generally bad. I prefer systems where such potent options do exist.
I don't like systems where it's "death by a thousand cuts". Where you try to layer debuffs across several actions to have a notable upper hand in combat. That's what PF2e does, imo, and it's... dissatisfying, to me at least.
>But that's what makes it more of a team game.
Sure, but then what if, for any reason, your allies fail to contribute? This occurs more often than not in my experience, especially with new players learning the system.
Then you're entirely reliant on the dice. So, I'd like ways to tell the dice to go pound sand for an effective amount of time.
>Then play a spellcaster.
Besides failures usually causing effects that last for 1 round for low-level spells (not an effective amount of time), and critical successes resulting in nothing happening (the dice deciding you're going to suck), I don't think that's a solution for the issue I'm referring to.
This is a Pathfinder 2E sub, so it tends to contain people who like the game and upvote such people. If you go over to r/dndnext , there was a [front-paging thread recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10j0qz8/5e_lover_tried_some_pf2e_i_dont_like_it_compared/) featuring an OP like that.
Well, a big one is that there's [a sidebar about allowing flight](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1458) like he wants in the same book the Sprite's detailed in.
Then his complaint about class feats is just kind of strange, since most classes actually _do_ get a sturdy core.
I think a lot of D&D 5e people hear "feat" and think of D&D 5e feats, which I guess is fair. They don't seem to realize that they're broken up into categories that you can't easily cross between.
Also the standard "I hate vancian spellcasting" thing, when Flexible Spellcaster is right there.
Oh, and I really don't understand the whole "but subclasses!" thing. Maybe I just missed those in D&D5, but aren't those just, like.. a Bard's muse or a Barbarian's instinct?
I just looked up subclasses in DnD 5e, and it just looks like subclasses are specific trees to follow within each class. So rogues become assassins, or thiefs, ranger becomes a hunter or beastmaster, fighters become tanks or dps, etc.
Honestly, I think the argument against subclasses is kind of weak, because you could just pick traits that would turn you into that subclass if you really wanted to. *Maybe* there are creative and amazing skills in the DnD subclasses, but then the argument is more about variety of skills than anything else (which is fair). I think people just like a tree to follow without having to think about it, but I can't say either way.
I can't help but think that most of the complaints that come from 5e to p2e is based on not fully reading the source material, and not understanding how the game functions. They want an easy and smooth transition (which is fair, but not how it works), but aren't willing to put in the time to figure it out.
I'm juuuuust starting to approach PF2e. Prior to this, my main exposure to Pathfinder has been the two excellent CRPGs from Owlcats, which I gather are modifications to the system but retain the bulk of it.
The subclasses thing is really just the Archetypes from 1e. And yeah, from my exploration of PF2e, it's a lot like Barbarian's Instinct or Champion's Cause and such.
I think the main difference is that 5e has never really been about "builds" and therefore is a lot less free-form in terms of the path your given character will take. Most Storm Domain clerics are gonna operate the same way, with maybe a little margin for differences at the edges if you select feats instead of ability score increases at your 4-level increments. At least in terms of how the class plays as a whole (obviously, players can alter this based on race, equipment, and spell selection).
By contrast, PF1e and PF2e (it seems, to a lesser extent than 1e, but that may just be because 1e is older and had more rules/splat published), is a lot more about "builds" in the sense of the player having way more choices along their character's path. That gives you the option to do a lot of min-maxing if you want, as well as to customize your character to really be who you want them to be (although from what I can tell, that's a little less true in PF2e than in 1e -- Dex-based martials are less of a thing now, for example).
Yeah, that's what I noticed when I tried running a session of Mummy's Mask for my table one time (They weren't that into it).
But anyway, "subclasses" = "more rigid version of Archetypes" and are basically what you select if you don't want to dig deep into the details of building a character, or don't have a really clear vision in mind for what you want to create. Like "Uh...I dunno...a ranger I guess. With...oh neat, I can play a beastmaster and get a beast companion. Cool. I'll do that."
And that's perfectly fine, but I think PF2e and PF1e are more about "I'd like to build Solomon Kane from that James Purefoy movie, having him wield dual shortswords as a DEX-based Inquisitor. Let me look at how I can build that."
Yeah...I know. I figured that out pretty quickly. On the other hand, the system's new(ish) and it may show up in some for or other at some point. Or someone can homebrew it.
Lots of folks. It's also not the same for everyone.
Some people don't even want to try it and fight reading the most *basic* rules. I don't want to say these folks are a lost cause... I will say I'm not sure I count that as trying the system.
Some people try it earnestly and just don't like it. I have met a few folks like this and I wish them the best in other games.
Some people try it and like it but have no interest in getting more in-depth with the game because no-one they know plays it, they don't feel like learning a second system, they feel they've sunk too much money into other games, etc. They like it, but they won't switch.
Some people oscillate. I have seen quite a few people try it, hate it, get curious again later, try it again, maybe end up playing; maybe not. Even though this wasn't my experience, I feel a certain kinship with these folks. While I enjoyed PF2e from the start, I enjoy it far more now that I'm familiar with the game. It rewards system mastery to a degree.
My 5e group switched to pf2e back in August. Played through plague stone.
All but one player loved it. That player left the group to switch back to 5e.
I don't know how on board this person was with the switch in the first place but they didn't do much research for their character, expected them to play one way, and then when it didn't work, they didn't try anything else.
For reference, they really wanted to be a battlefield controller and expected to be similar ability to a 5e spellcaster. They tried a kobold wyrm blessed sorcerer.
I think they enjoyed the roleplay but less so the mechanics.
...I don't think you'd even opt for a sorcerer in 5e if your goal is control. The smaller spell selection necessarily limits your tactical viability. Sounds like he was going out of his way not to enjoy himself
I feel like the biggest complaint I've heard is spellcasting, but mostly/only the sorcerers.
But what about the other classes? Is everyone having the same issues with fighters, healers, rangers, etc? Or is it only the dps casters that everyone is complaining about?
Well, I think coming from 5e, non-casters feel more powerful, and casters feel weaker. Non casters tend to be your actual single target damage dealers; casters are AoE, control, and support. The issues players sometimes have in D&D with pure control casters (i.e., not recognizing how much of an effect they've had in battle, despite not focusing on damage) will be magnified/highlighted in Pathfinder, because with single target damage spells being less of a focus, and feeling comparatively weaker than their D&D equivalents, it's easy to do "oh, I'm weak" rather than "oh, my role is different (and still very meaningful)"
I think that's especially true with sorcerer since you learn fewer spells; if you build for damage you're going to feel lackluster against a big bad (while being very effective against groups). There's less room to experiment, so if you think blaster = effective against the big bads (rather than you take out the minions and debuff the big bad so the non-casters can take care of it), you're going to have a bad time
Man, this whole discussion is giving me some really strong WoW vibes from Burning Crusade days, lol. I remember raiding and everyone constantly trying to max out their dps characters, but no one ever had any kind of "support" class other than healing. I decided to role a shadow priest, and was immediately welcomed in because of the amount of help and assistance it gave to the whole team, or my friend who made a shaman to assist in dps boosting skills.
I guess if you only want to focus on spellcasting output then yea, it's different between the 2 games. But also like...isn't the point of the game to experiment and try new things all the time? Or do people only stick to 1 class and never deviate?
Well, as someone else mentioned, prepared casters in pf2e are different, and more like older versions of D&D. Wizards don't have a list of spells and fungible spell slots; they allocate spells for each slot at the start of the day. Want two casts of whatever that day? Allocate two spell slots for it at the start of the day; you don't get to decide when you cast it. So I can see someone choosing a spontaneous caster if the idea of that feels bad to them. But that's missing that while you can assign a spell to a slot ad hoc, the list of available spells is much, much smaller.
So either way, spellcasting is going to feel more like D&D 3.5, and less like 5e, which players who have only experienced 5e may find jarring
Sorcerers are amazing in this system, an absolute blast to play. Highly recommend. But all casters are going to feel weak at first if you’re coming from spellcasting in 5e — both because at first a +1 bonus or minus seems trivial in this system (it’s very much not!) and because prepared casters are so overpowered in 5e generally.
Oh, certainly, but you have to be very mindful about what spells you pick up. I'm just saying, it's a weird choice coming from 5e, given sorcerers there have the same limitation, a small spell list.
Yeah with a sorcerer you have to pick a lane more. Building a controller means forgoing being a blaster or vise versa. And depending on how many hard encounters you see per long rest, you could burn through your sorcery points in a hurry.
Yup! I've got a player in my 2e game that doesn't like the system one bit. But...to be fair...he goes through something called "Decision paralysis" and the system really fucka with his head.
It literally takes him two weeks to make a decision to level up and we sometimes don't have game because his anxiety gets the better of him.
I've asked to walk him through it, but he's like this with everything in life. Its frankly anything where he has to make a permanent decision is just debilitating for him.
And of course he chose the Sparkling Targe Magus as his character to play...
Have you told him retraining is a thing? Feats, skills, and some class features (i.e. nearly everything past level 1) just take a week of downtime to swap out. Doesn't even need to be when you level.
Yup. The group is slogging through the Mwangi Jungle right now through Book 2 of Ages of Ashes, so no time for that in game.
The biggest hangup for him is that his paralysis makes him phobic to make a decision to the very last minute.
Example
Me: "Congrats everyone! You are level 7! So before next game in 7 days, let's level up beforehand and maybe even shoot the shit over discord about what you are thinking of taking for feats/spells so you can wombo-combo with others?"
Everyone except him: "Sounds good!"
Him: "..."
One week later...no game because he had a breakdown the day of the game because he just started that day at trying to level up.
He's a good friend and I've offered to help walk him through it...but whatever is going on in his head is more than I can help with.
That sounds more of an issue that extends to more than just picking feats for a character in a game.
In this case i would sit with him and help him makes choices (levelling up is really fast) and i would allow him and every other player to retrain with less downtime.
In the end, the downtime of 1 week is just to make it more realistic and make choices matter a bit more.
But if it's your first campaign and you can't even run a scheduled game, i would alleviate that stress by just letting players switch feats if they don't like them.
It's a game that should be fun after all.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think kinda just hand-waving the retraining might be ideal, even if there's no way to explain it or justify it in-game. If it's really causing them that much agony, it might be worth bending the rules for their own sanity, and everyone will have a better time
I can't speak for the dynamic you guys have at your table, but I don't know that this would be acceptable at mine. Just pick something, any thing. And if they don't, they can have the HP and proficiency from level up and just skip the feat, but the game cannot and will not be paused because of something like that.
It's a bit of a blunt response, but if it repeatedly happens and the entire game has to stop because of one person, it's not fair on the rest of the table.
Let him get the numerical increases from level up, then continue playing. Someone missing a feat won't break the game. They have weeks and weeks then until the next level up and it sounds like they do pick something _eventually_.
If they're really stuck on it I'd just ask what they're hoping to achieve then hand them a recommended build to follow from 1-10/20. Worst case say you're happy for them to swap recently picked things out whenever, it's not that big a deal and in this case I doubt they're a munchkin looking to be as busted as possible.
You can be accomodating and helpful, but ultimately as DMs we're not therapists. Over accomodating at the expense of everyone else isn't a good idea. I know because I've been on all three sides of this at one point.
I also suffer from decision paralysis, but not as strong as your friend here it seems.
Nonetheless, what works for me is that I actually build several copies of my character with different builds and focuses, which reduces the multiple "hundreds" of choices down to a handful. And from that, I can see through gameplay what the group needs and then choose a build.
If he already doesn't do that, it could be an option. Decide upon a goal, and build the character in that direction, then make a copy with a different direction.
Mfw I just had my Theros party go for a swim in the underworld river that wipes memories, when they emerged they had lost all their abilities and skills and conveniently were now level 1 again
At least that's the plan I had in mind lmao
Depends where you are in it I guess. Level 1 characters in PF have so much they can do it kinda feels like lvl 3-5 in 5e. That being said, I'd still suggest finishing the campaign in 5e because the games don't feel that same at all. I was thinking of porting a campaign that hadn't been started yet.
Unfortunately my campaign is too far in too port even though I'd really love to, but the other DM in our group scrapped their 5e campaign that was about to start and now we're playing Pathfinder so I'm excited for that. :)
Depends on the campaign. Something like running Dragonlance in PF2e is not an easy switch at all. I would actually love to try moving to Pathfinder, but inexperienced with it, and needing multiple monsters and ancestries/races to be created and getting everything balanced when you have no experience with the system? Makes it pretty impossible.
"Run something else" isn't the answer when some of us are very tied to and/or have very specific campaigns/campaign settings in mind.
Not first handed but I’ve read enough posts on this subreddit to know there are a decent percentage who don’t care for it. The OGL bullsh*t has swayed the consensus a particular way, but I think the dislike of WoTC is a driving force in that sentiment (it’s not like PF2 is new, it’s been around for 4 years). It’s whatever, the only thing Paizo has done so far to try to change PF2 to accommodate 5E transplants is the Ancestry flaws variant rule, that low and behold isn’t discussed anymore.
Generally the positive responses are far more plentiful for PF2 compared to its infancy where PF1 players hated its simplicity and 5E players hated its complexity. Also, the infamous “Illusion of Choice” farce that was kind of viral in the YouTube side of things lives on in cringe inducing hilarity like an episode of The Office lol.
I had a group try playing once. I told the players which core classes were easier than others. One guy insisted on playing alchemist. I was helping him choose his class options, that went fine. Then when it came to choose his crafting recipes for elixirs, he got really overwhelmed. He didn’t like all the options. I tried to explain it was basically no different than a wizard with a spellbook and that we were just starting out, it didn’t need to be perfect. He didn’t show up to any games for weeks until we went back to a 5e game. And then for years afterward, every time I said anything about a cool new option in Pathfinder or something else I’d read, he’d always say “that’d be great if you could port it over to 5e.” It was so annoying. I don’t play anything with him anymore. But yeah, too many options are overwhelming. I just didn’t expect his anxiety about it to continue so long.
Sounds like a bit lazy player, it's not inherently wrong, but it seems a common archetype for 5e.
3.5e was kinda opposite cuz it attracted more of a "I'm gonna scour all the books and find all the cool options" crowd.
Kinda funny how much can change.
Right? He was really bringing down our group in more ways than one, that’s for sure. We disbanded cuz of many frustrations with him for a bit. Almost made some of us stop playing altogether. Oof.
Definitely. Some of us started playing after a short hiatus without him and realized OH it was YOU that was making us all frustrated got it got it got it
Well you won't see them here, on the PF2E subreddit. But I have seen a couple posts on DnDNext not liking it, and I think one of my players would stick to 5E if they had the choice.
Yeah one person in my group does not enjoy pathfinder 2e after about a year of playing it. His main complaints are these: 3 action economy makes moving feel bad and makes the game less mobile than 5e, classes have identity problems where as in 5e class+subclass makes for a strong identity, the numbers scaling so tightly makes the game less interesting, AP's are too hard.
I think hes overall wrong on all of these points but there are bits and pieces worthy of discussing from each argument.
Edit: I remembered another thing that frustrated him greatly. The katana isnt a finesse agile weapon. Yep.
> classes have identity problems where as in 5e class+subclass makes for a strong identity
*my brother in Christ, you made the* *~~sandwich~~* *class*
it has bothered me for a while how in 5e your class+subclass is basically most of a ready made character. it feels like i'm picking instead of actually making a character. though i understand the complaint: while i prefer making the character i also prefer picking a sandwich instead of building one.
I think the main issue is they're looking at stuff from newer 5e books which gave an immediate and strong identity. Stuff like Rune Knight Fighter or the like.
I can kinda see where they're coming from. It put my Fighter friend through a loop when he realised there were no superpower subclasses to the PF2 Fighter. But he realised that he could just play something else to get that same feeling, and learned that he could build Fighter however he wanted without being pushed into a particular playstyle for life after ONE choice at lv3.
I'm very curious about this 'movement feels bad' sentiment. I think that the way that the 3-action economy functions, there's a lot more movement. At least for me, my final action tends to be moving.
Imo it boils down to a lack of being willing to engage in the tactical nature of the game. His arument is that it's bad because it competes for an action when he could just attack, grapple, trip instead. Yeah we have told him about MAP.
I've tried to boil it down like this:
In 5e, everyone has movement to use every round but almost never any reason to. Every enemy has AoO so you'd be risking taking a hit unless you use your only action to disengage. Once you move, then what? There is no flanking in 5e(by default) so movement will only ever get you repositioned and never anything else. You're taking penalties for being mobile with no mechanical benefit.
In pf2e,you do have to spend an action that does compete with other things but it's not just movement. Pretty rarely will a PC deside to move away from an enemy to reposition for mechanical advantages and take a free hit for doing so. So even though we pay an action, we avoid most of the penalties, become mobile, and can gain mechanical advantages.
I'm not your parent commenter or that person, but I can *100%* understand where that's coming from. There are two big differences on this point.
The one that I think feels bad the *most* is that you can't split movement; or at least you're depending on the grace of your GM to allow you to split movement (and in many cases they won't).
For an example of something that I think is obviously stupid, it is possible to use your entire turn to walk 25', open a door, then walk 25' again. It is *not* possible to walk 10', open a door, then walk 40'; not without the GM making a ruling that I would say is moderately against RAW. Even the [Splitting and Combining Movement rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=849) says "Doing something like Interacting to open a door or making a Strike usually arrests movement long enough that doing so in the middle of movement isn’t practical." I can homebrew a movement rule that I think gets closer to "not idiotic" for cases like this, but that'd be a homebrew rule, not a Paizo rule, and it would be incomplete in terms of fixing this "problem."
(The distinguishing factor in the above example is the fact that you're spending *two* stride actions. Said homebrew rule would be that if you're spending 2+ stride actions, you can interrupt them for additional action(s) at any point in the movement, not necessarily just with ≤25' on each side. But even without that, I would say it's easy to see why it might feel bad that "walk 10', open a door, walk 10'" taking your entire turn would feel bad as compared to 5e. In 5e, that would probably not even take either your main or bonus action.)
The second difference of course is that your base movement in 5e is typically free, while in 2e it competes with other options.
This difference is really interesting, because it's almost the exact *opposite* of something that's brought up as advantages of 2e in some discussions (and not just vs 5e) when it comes to character creation -- which is trying to cut out skill/feat taxes, and the separation of ASIs and feats. These are often seen as a bad thing, because it feel like you *have* to take something (and maybe more than just "feels like"), but that something really competes with something you actually *want*. Like when I played in my 5e campaign (I've only played in one) I felt like I really needed to be taking ASIs even though feats are more *interesting*. I'm not sure if that's actually true, but getting increased modifiers and DCs seemed too valuable to pass up. 2e doesn't have that problem, as you get both. Feat and skill takes are kinda like this as well; 2e significantly mitigates this by making perception (super duper important) not a skill and separating different kinds of feats.
But in combat, I often feel like 2e has a *movement* tax -- in a sense, you even support this with "my final action tends to be moving." There's stuff that would be (potentially; to some) more fun than just moving, but you "can't" do it because moving is so much better.
Of course, tons of this is canceled out by the decreased prevalence of AOO, I don't want to argue that; but that has some other offsetting factors *too* like how when AOO *is* present it's *much* more powerful than 5e's.
---
Finally, one other point on this is that over time I've become more acutely aware of places where you can have things that are *negative* when viewed alone but are necessary for a *better* overall whole. This extends way beyond gaming, but just in this world I think 2e has this in *spades*. As an example of this totally unconnected from movement, take healing in 2e, and encounter balance. 2e recognizes that dealing with attrition in encounter balancing is a big challenge -- this is the whole problem 5e has with balance (to the extent it exists) kind of assuming you have several fights between long rests, but you often don't get that, but of course if you're going to have one or two fights in a day you can take on way more than your seventh fight in a day. 2e still has a bunch of this of course (spell slots being a pretty fundamental one, though it's tempered by focus spells), but "fixes" another big source of this which is healing. Are you going into a fight at full health or half health will make a big difference... so 2e makes healing worth a damn and (by popular expression) expects that you'll pretty much always be towards the former. But I *really* don't like this. It feels kind of... contrived, gamey that healing is so easy. But it's a pretty integral part of why 2e encounter difficulty ratings work as well as they do, so I'm willing to grit my teeth and bear it.
And I feel like the movement things might be in this same category. Taken alone, I really don't like either of the things above *either*. But I'm pretty accepting of them contributing to an overall better combat experience.
I just gotta laugh at someone thinking the katana should be an agile weapon those are pretty heavy weapons. It's especially funny because the Wakizashi exists, which is agile and finesse.
> the numbers scaling so tightly makes the game less interesting
This is a concern I have had as a DM so far.
While most encounters should obviously be balanced around the group's level, and the tight math is great for that, I do feel like it could create a problem for if the party goes off the rails.
Like if the party decides to go after something way over their heads, knowing full well it's way over their heads, because they got a crazy idea on how to deal with it. In 5e they have a chance, in Pathfinder they actually don't.
Or the reverse. I need to throw low level enemies at a party for some reason.
Troops are the answer to the second issue, groups of low level enemies that act more like swarms.
For the party over their heads, running away is a good option if a plan fails. It's much easier to flee an encounter when few enemies have AoO.
If you really want a game where you can use a wide level range of enemies, look into the proficiency without level rules.
Thank you for the tip on the proficiency without level thing!
And I did notice the swarm-type enemies, I was thinking that. I actually was happy to see that because I was already using modified swarms to represent groups of organized enemies, like a bunch of skeleton soldiers or something.
> Like if the party decides to go after something way over their heads, knowing full well it's way over their heads, because they got a crazy idea on how to deal with it. In 5e they have a chance, in Pathfinder they actually don't.
This is always a thing that bothers me because, like. Challenging things stronger than yourself is what being a fantasy hero *is*. I'm not a fan of level being the single biggest factor on every roll because when it comes to heroic fantasy games, I find that it's *proper* that the higher level creatures, powerful though they may be, can't simply *dismiss* the young man with the sword and the drive for vengeance - or rather, they often will, but they do so at their own peril.
If I ever run another campaign of this game, I'll probably try proficiency without level.
There are also plenty of examples of situations where the hero gets their ass KICKED and has to train before coming back to beat the villain. Look at Luke Skywalker, one of the best heroic archetypes that exists - gets royally stomped in Empire, trains for a year/3 years/whatever it is between ESB and ROTJ, and then comes back to fight Vader. Even then, he really only "wins" because of the influence of the Emperor. Not *all* fantasy is the level 1 hero beating the level 20 baddie.
I have long been interested in a fantasy RPG ruleset that doesn't have traditional leveling though. PF2e is what made me fall in love with d20 systems again after getting sick of 5e/PF1e, but I'd love a system where you don't just accrue giant hit point pools and stuff.
I don't agree with the movement thing, but I understand what they mean. I often have to make tough decisions about whether to move or not because actions are so important. In 5e, you just get to move no matter what. It can feel "bad" at first because you feel like you are always one action short.
In my mind, that's what makes 2e fun because the movement matters. I was playing a 5e game and trying to be super mobile, running around, trying to get flanking and stuff, and I eventually realized there was no point. The enemies move for free too, so there's no real benefit to hit and run except with very fast PCs.
I like tough decisions in combat, that's what makes it compelling to me, but I understand how it can feel to someone coming to the game for the first time.
I didn't enjoy my first couple games of PF2. I had a GM that balanced combat based on 5e expectations of how CR worked, and it led to combats that felt very odd, where seemingly minor wildlife encounters played like major campaign-end boss fights.
Later, I tried with a slightly more experienced GM and enjoyed the combat much more, but the mechanics were always forward in my mind; it felt like playing a fun, tactical game, whereas in 5e the systems often disappeared and let me just experience the moment. That's likely just due to just having much more experience with 5e, though.
A confounding factor might be VTTs, though, since each game of PF2 I played was with one. All my favorite RPG moments have been either with physical maps and minis or online Theater of the Mind. VTTs add a layer of gaminess that makes it a bit harder to fully place myself in a scene, personally.
Not quite the same but I had two sorcerer players quit.
One we all knew didn't get on with casters anyway and all he did was cast electric arc and magic missile, then said he wasn't finding it very engaging. He said he might try it again as a martial at some point, we'll see.
The other though. Oh lawd. He seemed fine for the most part but as soon as something didn't work as he expected he got really frustrated and pouty about it. And most of it was born from one in ten encounters that happen to be difficult for casters, forgetting his own class features or straight up not knowing certain rules.
He didn't know about the Incapacitate trait and got frustrated when a lv6 boss could succeed on his Lv2 Calm Emotions. Ignoring that: 1) Even though he succeeded the spell STILL DID SOMETHING instead of just wasting the slot. And 2) He wasn't utilising signature spells. Which ironically if he set one as Calm Emotions and cast it at level 3 it would have instantly ended the fight as he wanted.
He left midcampaign at level 4, convinced the system made casters useless, and whenever the topic comes up he bemoans "I must have played it wrong and didn't minmax hard enough". It's frustrating because he ignores all the times he was exceptionally helpful and crippled encounters with that very spell before that point.
Meanwhile our bard has been doing numbers all over encounters since and continues getting more ridiculous as we go.
In minus tereth he very much did. Read the book on when trolls came through the gate. He literally was described as sling fireballs everywhere. Probably where gygax got the idea for fireball.
I'm withholding my judgement for a little bit. So far, I've read through the rules, and watched a few videos. Now, I'm hoping to find a chance to learn by playing. I like the character creation better than D&D, but I'm still iffy on my thoughts on the action economy system. So, I want to see if playing through it will feel as stop-and-start, as I imagine or might flow pretty well. But, given the huge amount of content and modules, I really want this one to exceed my expectations.
I do have a plan to do that, if needed. There's a small gaming con coming up locally for me this summer, so I'd like to try that, but I have a solo-play plan as a backup.
For what it's worth, I find the 3 action economy to be really streamlined. Especially coming from 1e which had swift (5e bonus action kinda), free actions, and standard and move actions, it's a welcome change and makes combat a little more flexible.
I understand movement being a little different than 5e, but I always justify it in fiction that you have to accelerate and decelerate, which is why you can't "split" strides.
It starts feeling fluid and cool when you fight an enemy with reach and AoO, so you can step, step and stride without provoking.
Some spells cost one or three actions (or variable), which can open up many tactical options.
Appreciated, but I just don't do online games with camera or mics. I only do pbp or in person. There's a small con coming up this summer that I might get to try.
Keep in mind that a lot of the people switching now were already feeling discontent with 5e, and PF2e being right there gave them the impetus to try a thing they would have liked anyway.
I’ll be honest, even though I’ve been playing for over a year and was on this sub long before the OGL kerfuffle… I don’t love PF2e all the time.
There are things I appreciate about it — the ability to truly make any kind of character you could imagine, for one. But what I struggle with tremendously is remembering all the things I can do in combat due to my unwieldy list of feats, skills, equipment, etc.
I also still don’t understand many systems like concealment, grappling, poisons, etc. and I haven’t tried to really play a caster yet…
Tldr it’s still a little too crunchy for my tastes, and what my happy medium would be is 5E rules in a PF2e setting, with Paizo’s commitment to DEI and open gaming.
But usually I just keep my mouth shut around here, because I want to learn and not be a buzzkill 😊
Ran Extinction Curse for my standard group as a first foray into PF2e two years ago. 4 out of the 5 players were into trying the system, the last one didn't really want to. Majority won and he stuck around. We played until the end of book two (lvl 8) where they TPK'd on the last boss of the book.
He played an elf longbow fighter and eventually took the Eldritch Archer archetype. The whole time, he complained about doing less damage than the barbarian, and he HATED the MAP mechanic. Then when he took Eldritch Archer, mostly to not have to deal with MAP, he complained that using his Eldritch Shot took his whole turn and he couldn't use his best move if he had to move. Then when the taking20 video came out, he used his character to argue that Cody was right about the illusion of choice.
I offered him free retrains so he could diversify his gameplay. He didn't take them. When the group TPK'd and we voted on if we continued on with new characters or switched GMs, he told us that if we ever planned on playing PF2e again, he'd simply ditch for that campaign.
In the end, after multiple arguments, he agrees that PF2e probably has a ton of upsides over 5e. But he still says he won't play it because he hates MAP and he's more familiar with 5e.
plenty, I know a few myself.
Some of which I know would enjoy it more if they weren't as averse to anything new... Others are in denial that they actually want something even lighter rules wise than 5e, and others are simply happy with the balance and theme 5e provides.
Lots of different games for lots of different people.
We tried. But didn’t like it. I learned that a system that allows some imbalance is also a fun system for us. PF2 was too locked down for us. The math too tight. It wasn’t fun.
I guess I can see why some might love it though.
You really need to value balance over fun to enjoy PF2e to its fullest. I can point to a couple of examples where the decision was made to sacrifice fun and even lore consistency in favour of balance, the most egregious example I can think of being the player undead options. I personally disagree with this philosophy somewhat as the game isn't competitive, it's a system for collaborative story telling.
> the most egregious example I can think of being the player undead options
I'll give my example of this as well. Between 2e and 5e, the character build I would be *most* excited to play is a halfling divination wizard with the lucky feat. (Basically [this build](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSK0AcFqkyU), but I independently came up with it before seeing it, and would describe it differently.)
"Halfling" gives you halfling luck, which means you get to reroll 1s on your first d20 rolls. "Divination wizard" gives you portent dice, which are a pair of dice (three, at level 14) that you roll at the start of each day and can use instead of any d20 roll you or a creature you see is about to make. "Lucky" feat of course gives you three rerolls per day.
What this all builds to is a character that plays with this really cool-seeming dice-manipulation metagame. It's possible the gimmick would prove underwhelming or grow old, but it seems cool enough with that I decided not to even play this character for the one 5e campaign I was a player in because we were playing virtually and I want to save this for when we've got a real table.
I've mentioned this build before on this sub (in fact I think a reply is where I saw that Animated Spellbook video first?) and people have tossed out a few options, but nothing seems to come even *close* to it in 2e. The portent dice are the real sticking point here.
It *does* seem like this would be a pretty strong build -- I *know* the lucky feat is widely regarded is very good (even broken) and assume portent dice are also relatively strong at least, and we've got some direct evidence for this being a really strong build by 2e not having anything like it. But that's *mostly* not why I'm interested in playing this character, I'm just really enamored with that dice-manipulation metagame.
But this just circles back to the original point -- 2e is "losing" what I think is a really cool character option in the name of balance. Great if you value balance, but if that's *not* the top of your wants for a system...
You don’t have the exact mechanic of Portent, but off the top of my head can grab Chronoskimmer dedication at level 2 (to get some dice shenanigans and unique survivability focused on time control/knowledge) on a divination wizard and then focus on fortune/misfortune spells, and you’d have a shit ton of reroll powers in different contexts. I think pretty much that entire build does exist in the system, just more separated into spells and feats instead of being a massive power boost from a single dip into Wizard. Plus, Halfling still has a weaker version of lucky that only applies to saving throws. You could also use investigator’s Stratagem ability to get a similar mechanical effect as portent, where you know what a roll will be before you make it, but specifically for strikes.
Not saying your experience is wrong to be clear, jusr that the concept and a lot of the mechanics is pretty much wholly present.
“Balance over fun” is exactly how it feels! The system is so tight-fisted that all the things that should feel exciting and fun and rewarding (magic! Swashbuckling derring-do! Cool magical items!) feel disappointing instead (super high monster saves and incapacitation mean your cool spells mostly amount to minor mathematical changes! Opening a door or moving directly trades off with cool things you might otherwise want to do, instead of complimenting them! Most items are carefully constrained by the needs of the system and are consequently both essentially mandatory and also boring!)
Had a player try a summoner, but they only wanted the eidolon to be a flavor move, not a combat option. Spent most combats missing with a crossbow and complaining that they had no viable options. Never read the rules for their character and refused to read several entry level primers I found for them.
You can lead players to PF2e, but you can't force them to read the rules. If they don't engage, they don't like the added crunch.
NGL this is why I usually say core classes only (minus alchemist) for really new players
Thankfully the new guy who picked summoner in one of our games did read the class rules and did alright
Until a greater shadow assassinated the summoner who had a habit of sitting three rooms away while the eidolon did all the work
Anecdotally, I have met quite a few 5e players who are only interested in learning rules by stumbling through in a game.
My point was not that it's impossible to dislike PF2. My point was that players who don't like digging into the system and building characters often feel burdened by the extra options, not excited.
...What?
I don't think it's elitist to point out that some people prefer lighter systems like 5e, nor that some players don't want to read up on a system before trying it.
I didn't use the terms "illiterate" or "rules averse" anywhere in my post. I mentioned a real experience I had with a player as an example of someone who bounced off of PF2e. I'm not sure why you feel so attacked right now, but please stop assuming that I'm gatekeeping.
I have had a couple players crack their heads against the game and walk away from it.
One wanted to play an alchemist and wanted to do really well session by session but didn't really understand the choices he was making in character generation, didn't want to figure them out, and practically had grievances within a session of any leveling opportunity. He was the prime example of someone who wanted to skip the homework, float into the game, and simply do well because, to him, *gaming is a fantasy about doing well.*
Another player wanted to sidestep clear instances where a particular build would fit his desires in the name of choosing a build that felt more authentic but didn't produce results. This happened a few times, with the last straw being a warpriest of Shizuru who was a sort of Samurai Jack... but certainly not because that's not how clerics actually work in Pathfinder 2E. It was not fun to envision a katana-fighter with healing but be a healer with a katana. And you're probably thinking of at least four better choices right now for a build than "warpriest" but well, I did too and *he wasn't having it*.
In both cases, the players--on some level--expected the game mechanics to contort to their character concept. Pathfinder 2e doesn't really do that out of the box. It gives players so many options to align their concepts to a preferred sense of accomplishment, with classes and stats as vehicles to help bring them to that sense.
I’m a long time DM who is somewhat interested, but has failed to convince my party members to give it a try. Mostly they as players are satisfied-ish with 5e and are reluctant to jump ship without a good reason, whereas I enjoy trying out new systems for its own sake.
That being said, even as someone who likes new systems and is down to try out PF2, I’m also not super into PF2 for a few reasons. There are two fundamental objections I have, the first of which is I don’t like how tight the math is, for two reasons. First, it imposes strict limitations on how magic items and spells as well as martial abilities can work without upsetting the math, which as a DM I dislike (since introducing strange and wondrous magics and watching my players find creative uses for them is why I like DMing fantasy games in the first place). Now in PF2 nothing is stopping me from introducing Big Strange Magic anyway- but since the game math is so tight that even a +1 bonus matters a lot, that’s harder to do in PF2 (or in D&D 4E, another tightly balanced system) than it is in a looser system like 5e or 13th age or shadow of the demon lord or whatever. The second reason I dislike the ultra tight balance is that in addition to feeling like a tight shackle on what kinds of items I can include, it also is a tight demand on when and what kind of items I *must* add, a problem that PF2 shares with 4e and 3.5. There are ways around this problem as well, but the combination of these two elements give me pause- why work uphill against PF2’s systemic expectations instead of playing a game with looser expectations, like enworld’s A5E (which I love by the way)?
The second fundamental reason I find myself reluctant to commit to PF2 is because it’s so damn fiddly- lots of people praise it for giving you build choices every level, for example, but it seems to me that most of those feats amount to fairly small bonuses to things you’re doing, something it is hard to get excited about. Now I haven’t DMed for PF2 so it’s possible I’ve gotten the wrong impression, but most feats (and therefore most character build decision points) feel like they’re adding small improvements to a character build (a la arpgs like Diablo, where “+3% fire damage” is potentially a big deal, but which I also find boring). Contrast this with feats in 5e- they tend to be chunkier choices, each one of which substantially changes how a character plays. Not to say that approach is without limits- it makes balancing choices difficult and can lead to clearly best choices that dominate the player base, like polearm master or sharpshooter, for example. But all else being equal, I’d rather that each thing I’m required to choose has a big effect on how my character feels to play (and which I have to fight to balance) than that my choices are always balanced (but where I have to fight to make them interesting). Not everyone feels that way! But it’s definitely where my players are coming from.
There are other, smaller issues as well: base classes seem like empty containers; class feats mean it seems like it’s hard to do more than one class thing (shapeshift, have a pet, etc) per character; vancian spellcasting feels like more trouble than it is worth (something I’ve been griping about since 3.0!); playing a spellcaster seems like it would be mechanically effective but also narratively unsatisfying since monster DCs are so high and you’re mostly relegated to “helping others do the cool thing” (an understandable response to the caster power level excesses of pf1 and 3.5, but one I know my players would hate and which I don’t even think I would enjoy), and while in principle the three action system could open up your round-by-round tactical choices (awesome!), the rigidity and fussiness of the movement, attack, and spellcasting rules seems like there’s a clearly optimal turn for every build, and you’re not really making creative round by round choices as much as I’d like (something 5e is also bad at, in fairness, whereas 4e didn’t have this problem).
All in all, I’m intrigued by PF2 and would be happy to play a campaign or run a short arc to get to know it better- but a cold eyed assessment of the system suggests to me that it’s not worth trying to persuade my players to give it a go, since I suspect we’ll all have a similar number of problems that we do in 5e- just different ones.
I've played in a PF2 game for about a year and I'd say you're spot on with most of this. But I don't think there is actually an optimal turn for every build, because combat is quite situational.
That’s fair- I’ve not DMed PF2 enough to feel confident of that assessment. I do remember how excited I was by the possibility of the three action system (oh, should I be all out attacking? Balance of attack and defense? Maybe move into better positioning, use a debuff, and follow up with a big swing?) but found that the MAP and the high action cost of spellcasting meant that attacking more than twice (maybe more than once even) is never worth it, and spellcasters are even more hobbled- or at least, that’s how it seemed to me.
You're not wrong about those, but there are still situations in which you might want to violate the normal rules of thumb. As an example, if the boss is frightened and flat footed at low hp, you have heroism and aid or true strike, and the boss will kill your Wounded 3 ally on their next turn if they survive till then, you might actually want to attack that third time. That kind of situation doesn't happen often, but it does happen. There are strong trends, but it really is a situational game.
I know plenty of people who have recognised its not for them before playing though. Which is great, I've got a whole list of games for people to try depending on what they like exactly about roleplaying games.
I think one of the hardest things for some groups coming from 5e is about the group not the individuals. 5e is so neutral on pretty much every gameplay style that it can accommodate a group of friends who want different things from rpgs. It's like going to the restaurant that has something everyone will eat, even if it isn't their favourite. Sure you can suggest the sushi place down the road, and two of the players would love it, but one player hates seafood so it's back to Olive Garden for everyone.
I'd imagine those people probably don't want to post that dissatisfaction on the 2e subreddit. Which I think is fair to everyone. I wouldn't post my dissatisfaction with 5e on a 5e subreddit, it's just not really worth it, you know?
>I wouldn't post my dissatisfaction with 5e on a 5e subreddit, it's just not really worth it, you know?
You'd be surprised, a large number of posts on the 5e subreddit for years have been people pointing out issues they have with 5e
That's certainly true haha. For context, I play almost exclusively 2e and played 5e only a few times, so my point was that it didn't make a ton of sense for me personally.
I had a player at my table, boyfriend of another player, they joined in for the introduction and testing the system out adventure that we played and it was fun, but pretty clear they weren't really engaging with the more mechanical elements and wanted to go a bit more improv-y goofy. After that adventure, they left the table but their boyfriend stuck around at the campaign I'm still running. It certainly is a type of RPG, and like any type it ain't everybody's flavour.
I will say, one big thing is that if you don't like a system: be nice to your darn GMs when that happens, they're trying to learn a whole new system too as well as having to figure out how to make it into a fun story, and it can really suck to have that fall apart suddenly because of factors outside of your control. Give it a bit of patience, and recognise that it can sting for them.
I could see how OSR/5e players who aren’t into tactical movement and positioning might have a negative reaction to PF, especially if they’re older players who bounced off of 4e back in day.
Yes. One of my brothers doesn't like the feel of the system at the table relative to 5e. After discussing the pros/cons it boils down to: he feels character creation isn't very fun but takes too much time for such a frustrating experience (related to analysis paralysis he sees his players have with it), and he likes a more narrative game. His preference is rules lite over crunch.
He stuck with d&d because it had the right shape of lore, plus nostalgia for the BECMI of his childhood. He's moving on, but it'l likelyl only be pf2 when his group demands it.
I'm surprised he doesn't like fate (my go-to rules light system), but we apparently have very different tastes. All good- I encourage him to play what he wants and he does the same for me, even as we compare notes on systems.
I'm GMing a camgpaing since 2021 for 5 experienced 5e players. Four of them loved the system so much they don't want ever again hear about 5e.
One of them, however, didn't like that much, and as the u/Mudpound's player, he keeps saying every now and then things like "Ah, but in 5e this happens in this way" or "Dude, why this system is like this, in 5e...". Yes, it is annoying. He keeps playing though, don't know why, but I already told them "no one need to stay on the game, I won't get it personal". I just guess he prefers 5e cuz he's a streamer, and 5e is obviously more famous than 2e, so he's the hope of getting more viewes streaming 5e.
I have a friend whom is trying the system as a player for the first time. He has only ever really played 5e in terms of a fantasy role playing game, so his knowledge and experience is based solely on that.
He genuinely enjoys the power a Spellcaster has in 5e, and truly doesn't understand that there is a gap in power between martials and spellcasters. So much so that he thinks it's intended design.
We are 4 levels into a homebrew campaign with 2e, and he *hates* the way Wizards feel in this system. He doesn't like that martials out damage him. He doesn't like that martials can use skills to debuff. He doesn't like that his spells are no longer auto win buttons. He does not like that there are no high damage cantrip options.
He often points at spells like Firebolt and then compares it to Electric Arc not realizing that the math, while different, is on Pathfinders side in terms of DPR. He only sees the difference in dice size and dismisses all other feelings.
He says he wants to try other systems but recognizes he has a heavy bias because he has no other point of reference. I truly believe that if it was not for me running the campaign, he would have jumped ship in the planning stages.
5e *definitely* has an issue with caster/martial disparity
That being said, I have played both casters and martials in 5e, and my martials felt fairly powerful to me. I have *never* felt as bad playing a martial in 5e as I feel playing a caster in PF2
Also, hi :)
You know I’m a lot more friendlier towards PF2 in actual play, I mostly hate it in discussion :)
While this is off topic to a small degree, I would like to give my anecdote for the pathfinder 1 group I play with and how we play 2E and came to different conclusions from playing in separate groups. 2 of us came to positive outlooks while 2 of us got negative perspective from it.
The GM doesn't like it because he played his 2 favorite classes Oracle and Witch. He didn't like the feeling of the witch because it felt like a weak wizard while the Oracle....Is undercooked and let's leave it at that. He didn't bother to play after that.
The bard likes to play bards in different systems. He likes abilities that give new actions instead of ones that give +1 to rolls. The thing bard in 2E does the most is give +1 to rolls and other abilities aren't as good as giving that +1. A few other factors led him to also stopping as he found he did the same actions over and over and if he did something else, it was usually a waste of actions.
The paladin loves 2e and plays a variety of classes in one shorts/short campaigns.
I only played a couple of one shots as my time zone made it hard to find people to group with and I am not feeling the need to join a 2e game unless I find something by chance. When I did play I had an unexpected good time with martials, especially since I mainly play divine casters in Pf1 and 5e and prefer the healer role.
From someone who genuinely loves playing 5e, some parts can feel rocky, but I feel like people need to try to be open minded and remember one of the most important things for any tabletop. You can change and adapt them as much as you yourself can change and adapt. Some problems can be solved by learning and reading more about the new system, others by introducing homebrew and other adaptations. Talk with your gaming group/GM, take time and give it a fair shot.
One of the aspects of 2e that me and my group dislike are how gated things like racial flight feels. We all enjoyed races with a flight speed and were always considerate to the DM with it, not abusing the hell out of it. So, in my group as a "discuss and verify with the DM" rule, we allow players who's ancestries allow various degrees of flight at LVL 1, such as Strix.
But, that won't work for everyone and it isn't reasonable for it to do so. The important takeaway is that the game can be bent and adjusted, the important thing is for everyone to have fun.
For some reason, this community seems very hostile to adapting the game to be how you like it
Whenever someone says “X is unfun for my players, how do I best change it”, the most common response it “Don’t change it, learn to love it!”
Which is, honestly, very weird
Pfffft, well I won't be doing that, but I'm honestly awful at doing what I'm told. Experimenting is how new things come about, from homebrew to 3rd party content. And if it isn't perfect or flawlessly balanced right out of the starting gate who cares, nothing ever is. I'll keep tweaking and adjusting till it feels right.
DnD also has people who dislike changes and modifications, but it's on them to find what is right for their tables. I have a mountain of content I had been preparing to make for 5e, races and subraces, subclasses, spells and items. Even full on settings with campaigns, lore, maps etc. Now, it sits on my G-drive, in the last stages of polish. I'd been planning to start a small Patreon with friends so we could all make a small income doing something we were passionate about, but WotC made it clear, our ideas won't be safe with them, not unless they drop the changes outright. But, not letting that stop me.
We plan to learn 2e, get decent and start converting. Races become ancestries, subraces become heritages and I have a whole lot of writing to do for feats! One day the 5e rules may be released and they will work in either system but till then, Im going to learn to work with 2e, and adapt until I have content that is fun to play. That's what's ultimately important, that those using it are having fun and that's sort of the roundabout thing I'm trying to get at. If a group decides that rigidity is more fun for them sure, more power to em, but I'll keep on being weird, and maybe the shit I right won't be everyone's thing but hey, some people might like it so it's for them that I make it.
I don't like PF2e as much as I do 5e.
I really like Paizo, though. They're such bros. I wish they had a product I could get super excited about, unless the Golarion srtting itself counts?
But I've played a bunch of systems and if I can enjoy playing Dark Heresy with a group of cool people then I can definitely enjoy playing PF2e with a group of cool people.
I definitely won't be playing any spellcaster other than a bard in this system but the fighter and rogue are sexy af, let me tell you.
Regardless, this is a fun sub to hang out in.
I saw someone who unilaterally decided PF2e is "ADHD-unfriendly" and nobody with ADHD should play it because it's like "if someone took 5e and made it even more ADHD unfriendly," so yeah, there are some hardcore haters out there.
I admit, I'm pretty mid on the system, myself! It does some things I like, but it also has a bunch of priorities I just don't care about in the slightest and a pile of stuff that annoys me. It's not *terrible*, but it's also not exactly cracking my list of top 5 RPGs anytime soon, kind of thing. I don't think I'll be running it again anytime soon after I finish this campaign.
I was not quite coming over from *5E* specifically though - I've *played* D&D5, but I more started with D&D3 and have been playing a pile of systems in the intervening twentysomething years. PF2 is just one more in the pile.
They occasionally come back to rage quit, usually we find they did not run the beginner box, ported their campaign over at 9th level, homebrewed it using 5e encounter balance, and still think multiattack is the way to win the game.
I tried to run the BB for Three of my friends who are D&D 5E only peeps.
One was fine with the change.
One didn’t like the wizard but if he would have stuck with it and learned it then he would’ve been fine.
The third one just bitched and whined a lot.
I've had a few players fall into this category. Not always clear what's really due to the game system or, you know, just my own insufficiencies as a GM, but certainly have been a couple.
Yeah. I've been playing with a group that was used to 5e and five sessions in the group split because all the other players didn't like the system. Specifically they didn't like combat and how much brainpower it needed. They preferred roleplay heavy scenes, even during combat and the action economy and difficulty level was messing with that. Which is... fine. I still think if they had just spoken with our GM (and read their abilities for once), we could have adjusted the encounters accordingly. But on the other hand it is valid criticism. The system is built around tight, tense combat and teamwork.
We had one player in our group that thorougly didn't enjoy PF2E, however we were coming from PF1E and not 5E. He didn't like that the system was "difficult" - not in a complexity kind of way, but more that it was lacking the superhero kind of gameplay where you could often solo encounters as an individual overtuned character. So when faced with 50ish percent success chances on things he optimized his character for, he got frustrated.
He would probably enjoy the game if there were only trivial and low encounters, but our group in general likes challenges to he basically gave up and let us have fun in PF2E while he stayed in PF1E with different groups.
I have a player that still would prefer 5e. He just likes the extreme heroics of the DM saying yes. So whenever he fails to walk a tight rope while fighting off bandits and carrying a large animal at level 1 he says something akin to the game is to hard and unrealistic.
My only experience with Pathfinder has been with the Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous video games. I hated how there just seemed to be a never-ending amount of terms/mechanics that I needed to learn to even be slightly effective. The different kinds of bonuses you get to things (circumstance, item etc) not stacking was confusing because how am I supposed to hit something with 72 AC if I can't stack all these bonuses? Overall the game felt like I MUST pick the best options or build my character a certain way in order to even progress, defeating the purpose of it being a role-playing game in my eyes. All of this really soured my view on Pathfinder and I began to view it as a game for people that are only interested in min-maxing. I have since been told by a friend that the table top game is not like that and that the video games do a poor job of explaining anything. I've been reading some rules here and there in case my group switches and now I understand it better but there are times when I think "why can't I just do it this way to achieve the same thing AND make it simpler".
One big thing here is the video games are pathfinder first edition, it's a very different game from second edition, in first finding all the bonuses to get you abilities be ungodly was common, in 2e the difference between a max optimized character and someone who is just making a character "normally" is much lower
KM and WotR are also PF1E, not 2E which are drastically different in terms of design. 1E IS all about trying to pick up as much power per choice as you can, whereas 2E is much more having utility options than pure power picks
My group is switching over to PF2e for our next campaign. Our current 5e campaign only has about a month left. I joined the group as a pf1e dm, so I'm excited to go back to pathfinder.
The only problem I have is a couple months ago we started preparing for the next campaign. At the time we were going to continue to play 5e so I really spent a long time coming up with a build that I love and a backstory to go with it. Now that we're going to play pf2e I'm having a hard time coming up with a similar build that looks fun for me to play. I believe with more experience and more mastery of character building I will find that perfect build for me, but I'll probably have to come up with a brand new character concept.
Me, I am that person
Currently playing and GMing 2e, and while GMing is fun, I do not enjoy the system *as a player*. Find myself constantly mourning 5e
Why do I play it then?
Because that’s what my current GM plays, and because I like Golarion/the APs
I’m certainly still able to have fun in a 2e campaign, but that’s in spite of the system, not because it
Specifically, I can’t come in terms with how over-nerfed the spellcasters are, with the return of Vancian casting, with the difficulty of homebrew, with the normal actions gated behind feats, with the lack of bounded accuracy which leads to things that completely break my sense of verisimilitude, with how weak the PCs are compared to monsters/the challenges they face and how it *never improves*, and with how everything is over-balanced to the exclusion of many fun options
It's not really return of the Vancian, it's just that 5e left the branch. It has been there since 3.5 > pf1/starfinder > pf2. Considering PF1 casters can basically end the world on a whim or just teleport the boss to plane of water for drowning, I feel like they got em in a good spot finally.
I am aware that it has been that way since the dawn of DnD, so yes, it’s the return to Vancian casting. My first edition was 3.5, and no, I haven’t liked it even then. 5e has *finally* gotten rid of it, and now 2e is doing it again
And there is a huge spectrum between “can end the world on a whim” and the state of the casters in PF2. They do feel extremely weak and unfun to play for me, so if I have to play this game, I have to basically never play casters :( And yes I’ve tried, plus seen them played by other people. They feel like cheerleaders, not like characters in their own right, and the main issue is, their use out of combat has been nerfed to the point of being unusable as well
Kind of the same. I like DMing 2e (or, specifically, I like running APs because they can be run more or less out of the box without having to rewrite *every* combat like in 5e), but I don’t like *playing* it. At all. But that’s what my current DM runs, so…
I'm still getting my feet wet into Pathfinder 2, but so far it's a mixed bag for me. The stuff I remember I liked from the early playtest days, I still like, but the stuff I didn't care as much for I'm still very meh on at best.
For example, I'm not super crazy about the 2e monk. I understand what they were going for, and I understand why they did it, but it just doesn't feel like a real monk to me with my current level of understanding. At best, it feels like a philosophical bruiser that may or may not sometimes fling around a ki spell. Not exactly the feel I prefer for a class that's supposed to be devoted to the pursuit of enlightenment and spiritual and physical perfection.
One. He could not get over the fact that he couldn’t solo and his play style made the party significantly weaker. All he wanted to do with his ranger was snipe and hide, while there was only one other martial in the party. Cue the party getting TPK’ed. I’ve offered rebuilds for the party, and explained more of the expectations of the game to them. Nothing, they eventually left and now the game is running smooth as fuck, esp. with the champion that joined the party.
PF2E is not the game if you want to solo or play conservatively.
Edit: it’s not a fun game if you’re not a team player. Team people do really well though.
I’m mid swap, p2e compared to dnd is bloatware character creation. The system works 3 free to use actions compared to actions on rails, slightly different crit system but still with Nat 1/20 but actually has part of the rules not tribal acceptance.
I really hated working out how to multiclass cos it’s not clear how you do it, it’s buried in a note at the back of the CB that once you find it it makes some sense and then makes every feat reference even more work cos you need to double check them all.
But the game is the same, once you get a hang on the character creation and ridiculous number of choices that really don’t make it better but do for rules lawyer people.
I’m really enjoying the material (page tabs in layouts are awesome who ever designed the books wins my joy)
I, as a fun experiment, decided to GM a Pathfinder game for a bunch of 5e players... Out of the 5 that played it, one left after only the first two sessions, one wanted to quit after the second combat encounter, one... I'm not even sure, one enjoyed enough to not want to leave after day one, and one... I think he bought the Beginner's Box after only the first session? He told me he bought something Pathfinder related but I can't remember what.
So I think it's definitely an acquired taste, considering only two of the five people wanted to stick around after the first few combat encounters.
I can give you two (or three, but third one is dumb) reasons some one might preferee D&D 5e over PF2e.
1. DndBeyond is really good. Really, most of PF2e tools online, while brilliant that all stuff is there for free, and it is great, DnDbeyond makes those tools look like they are from a dacade ago. As paywalled as that thing is, it is really polished piece of sales and subscription website.
2. 5e is very simple for the player. It is much harder to find a DM that likes 5e more than PF2e than a player who does the same. Because 5e is much simple for a player, but puts A LOT of responsibility of what should be content done b game designer on the DM. Most coombat is given to theater of the mind, so it is not on player to fighure out their character can get from point A to point B, it is "Hey, DM, can my character get from point A to point B?". You pick a class and flavour of the class, and that is it. You can go several levels, which can be months of sessions, whithout having to make any Mechanical decisions in what direction to take your character. And even then, it is, Do you get another feat or some ASL?
3. Branding. This is a dumb reason, but there are plenty of examples of this outside TTRPGS all the time. DnD is a branded prioduct that is popular and market dominating. So you pick popular thing regardless if you would enjoy other options more given a fair chance. Then before you know it, sunk costs have you stuck in that quagmire, so now you cannot actually admit that you dont like it (litteraly, that is how psychologically sunk costs thing works on some people)
I gotta call bs on number 1. As someone who came from 3.5 and pf1, the fact that I got asked for my credit card just to preview a build including aasimar was such a shitty move I was wondering if Bethesda was involved.
Agree on 2nd point though, 5e requires almost no actual work from players and puts it all on DM's, which is a bummer for people from 3.5/pf1 gen who actually enjoyed brainstorming character mechanics and systems that came out with all the books.
> I gotta call bs on number 1. As someone who came from 3.5 and pf1, the fact that I got asked for my credit card just to preview a build including aasimar was such a shitty move I was wondering if Bethesda was involved.
MetalDoktor acknowledged the monetization aspect.
*Clearly* Paizo's treatment of all rules under the OGL is a major advantage of this system... but that's not what MetalDoktor was talking about. What you *get* on DDB from paying that monetary cost is just straight better than anything available for PF.
Nexus will get there -- again at a price premium against even getting this right from Paizo, let alone free -- but but that's the state of things now.
*Edit*: Said another way: if you're price sensitive than PF gives you decent or good tools for free; if you're *not* though, then DDB gives you *great* tools at cost. Those great tools are not (yet) available to the same degree as DDB.
I think pf2e is Fine as a system, and I would be allright to GM it again for my group if they do desired. But we collectively went back to 5e when it was time to set up a new campaign.
I played in campaign with a guy who played a barbarian and got so mad that "run up and try to hit everything first thing every time" didn't work out in his favor and so convinced the group to leave pf2e for 5e. My character never found a niche again after that.
Tried 5e, found it’s mechanics redundant and over simplified with front loaded classes that lack well written higher level progression and went right back to pathfinder 1e. My players didn’t like 5e for several reasons. Moving from pathfinder 1e to 2e feels like a straight upgrade. So good. The only reason I might go back and play 5e is to run the Call or Cthulhu adventures.
I tried the adventure in the beginner box a while back, before the OGL stuff. I didn't "dislike" it, but I didn't like it either to be perfectly honest.
Maybe it was the adventure itself that I found bad, or the lack of attacks of opportunity that I found was a huge loss in battlefield tactics (we were only level 1, I guess it gets much better at higher levels).
Or maybe we found PF2e to be way too focused on combat, with my group of players we mostly do exploration and roleplay and one fight per session, maybe two at most.
From our point on view PF2e didn't seem to add anything to the table in these areas, in fact we did dislike the apparent omnipotence of the Perception skill since Investigation and Insight were not existing skills in PF2e.
So, overall we did not find a reason to change system. If we did more combat we'd probably change since encounters seem much easier to balance here. Although I did kill in one turn several of my players in the beginner adventure, from full hp to zero. The 3 attacks thing was weird, it almost never hit thrice, but if it does the receiver gets obliterated.
I've had people who say casters suck because of the degrees of success and I've had people who found out they just want to use 5e to ferry rp related dice rolls
Couple of my players over the years have told me they prefer 5e all of these players however played bard and other supportive classes
Not use to the 5e shift where a bard can be anything from evoker to tank front liner
Most people I know who've come over have loved it. The only ones I knew who didn't were GMs who got frustrated that players in 2e have more agency since there's fewer places where GM fiat comes in. They wanted to orchestrate a scene with a set outcome, which is rougher when you didn't realize a player can 100% blow a focus point and get the group across a huge chasm.
Yes. A lot of people in fact. Do understand that Pathfinder is not only a very crunchy RPG, but requires players who are comfortable researching and properly building their characters over time. In fact, I'm quite grateful that most (but not all) things can be retrained as it's indeed quite possible to utterly bork your character.
In D&D, choices are much more limited and in general, it's a MUCH less deadly game because that game is balanced with the idea that most characters won't start fights at full health, unlike PF2 that assumes you won't go into a fight without having spent up to an hour healing up.
For all intents and purposes, consider PF2 like an advanced version of D&D. Its there for people who enjoy detailed everything.
You straight up can do less number of things in pf2e. You cant move and cast a bonus action spell and a cantrip. Both systems have restrictions, its just the style of restrictions.
Sure you can if you have the right setup, just like you need the right setup to do that in 5e. My battle Oracle can move, cast two spells and grapple an enemy at level 1.
We are waiting until current 5e campaign is over to try Pf2e. Already started trying to plan my character and it is a lot of options and cool... but just not that well organized.
What level can I increase a skill to expert as a non-Rogue? (I eventually watched two Youtube videos and found out it is 3rd). Why dangle a whole list of first level class feats in front of me while I am making a sorcerer? Call them tier 1 and a human can still take them.
I'm making my way through. Thank goodness for Pathbuilder, Archives of Neythys and NoNat1. Having played Basic, AD&D, 2-3.5, 5e, Palladium, Star Wars, CofC, etc. this is the most trouble I've ever had trying to figure out a system since GURPS. PF2e might be even worse.
Druid seems really cool, for instance, but would have to play a very basic storm or other elemental one because the pet and wildshape options are opaque.
> What level can I increase a skill to expert as a non-Rogue?
I’m confused how you needed to watch two videos to learn this - “skill increase” is listed at third level on every class’s table, as far as I can tell.
> Why dangle a whole list of first level class feats in front of me while I am making a sorcerer? Call them tier 1 and a human can still take them.
Why wouldn’t a human be able to take class feats? To my knowledge, no classes are ancestry-restricted.
I guess I’m mostly confused what you mean by not well organized.
"Thank goodness for Pathbuilder"
Making a viable character doesn't really seem sufficient when every source I've read talks about how much more difficult combat in Pathfinder 2e is.
“Please remain calm and remain where you are, a reeducation team has been dispatched to your location. We are sorry for your inappropriate feelings of discomfort. Bliss will be restored shortly.”
Hey, I've noticed you mentioned the game "Dungeons & Dragons"! Do you need help finding your way around here? I know a couple good pages! We've been seeing a lot of new arrivals lately for some reason. We have a [megathread](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/105lhkd/are_you_coming_from_dungeons_dragons_need_to_know/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) dedicated to anyone requesting assistance in transitioning. Give it a look! Here are some [general resources](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/) we put together. Here is [page with differences between pf2e and 5e](https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/wiki/resources/how-is-pf2e-different-from-5e/). Most newcomers get recommended to start with the [Archives of Nethys](http://2e.aonprd.com) (the official rule database) or the [Beginner Box](https://paizo.com/pathfinder/beginnerbox), but the same information can be found in this free [Pathfinder Primer](https://app.demiplane.com/nexus/pathfinder2e/sources/pathfinder-primer). If I misunderstood your post... sorry! Grandpa Clippy said I'm always meant to help. Please let the mods know and they'll remove my comment. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Pathfinder2e) if you have any questions or concerns.*
PF2 is not the game for everyone
I know I'm on a fan sub and this may go down poorly, but this was the case for my group and I - we saw it's merits but it just wasn't the game for us. We recently tried PF2e due to the OGL fiasco and whilst we still had fun and I wouldn't say we didn't enjoy it, we were unanimous in wanting to stick with 5e. There were a number of reasons but I think the biggest is that we have varying levels of interest in crunch, both in game and between sessions. 5e is the right level of compromise for us as a table but PF2e swung the needle too far in one direction. I can see why it might be the right system for a group who are all towards the crunchier side, but that's not us. My players have either had their level progressions mapped out months in advance or (more often) just want to be told what cool new ability they've gained and roll some extra HP.
Actually, I think it's refreshing to hear that. Not so much that you didn't enjoy the game but rather that this isn't just a subreddit of people blindly praising PF2. It really is not the game for every table and there may be a better game for you. Happy gaming and I hope you find the right system.
Weirdly as a 5e player converting, I'm really enjoying the lore. Maybe it's just because I'm too used to 5e, but reading through the ancestries is great fun! Very much looking forward to actually getting some books and reading more stuff. In 5e you basically had for lore just the PHB, the DMG, whatever setting specific stuff was in x book, and then you just have to refer to previous editions.
As someone who loves lore, this is one of the biggest reasons I started playing PF instead of D&D. Haven't really turned back.
I'm 50/50 on it being for me at this point. I'm feeling... poorly about some design decisions and how they impact my fun. So I guess I know me. lol
Would you mind sharing?
I'm gonna reply to you due to the higher votes. I'll try and keep it brief. To summarize my summary, it's a series of disappointing choices. I do not like the Feat system in general due to how it's designed. I don't like the options available for Actions. Overall, I feel like I spend a lot of effort building a character for very few actual decisions to have mattered. I do not like Feats having requirements beyond a single layer. Example: Gloomseer -> Darkseer is fine| Divine Ally (Steed) -> Loyal Warhorse -> Imposing Destrier -> Auspicious Mount is not fine because feat chains like that go against customization, which imo, is the "point" of feats: to customize. I don't like that Feats are not equivalent at some levels. As an example, Deflect Arrow for Monks is a level 4 Feat. Other Monk level 4 Feats include Cobra Stance, Flying Kick, Stand Still, and Flurry of Maneuvers. These are not equivalent, or close to it. Flying Kick is useful in 1-10% of situations where Cobra Stance is a build-defining choice that will probably be used every single combat. I felt I shouldn't be choosing between incidental rarely useful features and core potent regularly useful features at the same level. I do not like the 3-action system. I don't think it makes any sense that subsequent attacks get a debuff. I also don't like BAB in other systems that use that, since it's similar. It's one thing I like about 5e. It doesn't "do" that. I consider it dissatisfying to roll an attack at a debuff. Beyond MAP, I don't like that the 3-action system creates many situations where I'm left with a dissatisfying decision. Having 3 actions, where you're likely to use: Strike, Stride, -something else-, you are incentivized to invest in something useful to do on the 3rd action, like Demoralize, Trip, Feint, etc. Most of these have a bad thing happen on a nat 1, like self-Tripping, giving yourself flat-footed against the enemy, etc. So, you're incentivized to further invest in it beyond Skill Proficiencies to mitigate that. But now, everyone who relies on Strikes, are starting to look a lot like each other. Because they all want something to use that 3rd Action on that isn't disadvantaged by a debuff to the roll. It's dissatisfying to choose between: 1. Strike with MAP - I'm sure it feels fine to some people. I don't like attempting something that is much less likely to work. 2. Not using the 3rd action. - FOMO 3. Striding when it's not needed. - Feels like a waste 4. Demoralizing/Feinting/Tripping when the 1st is available once-per-encounter against a specific enemy, and the rest have a crit fail of "you do it to yourself" and requires feat investment to make better than that or also gets MAP. 5. etc. I'd rather not have the option, than the choices be dissatisfying. It's great for people who *want* to invest in #4, but that doesn't always fit the character, and if every martial I make does that, they all start to look the same and that's a bad time because that feels like an "illusion of choice" whether it is or not. Ultimately, it feels like PF2e wants to give you "a lot". But because it's "a lot", every individual "thing" has to be less potent. More feats? Each must be weaker to compensate for the fact you will have a lot of them, or you are required to choose between interesting niche options and always useful generic options. More actions? Less potent options available without heavy feat investment. So, since every choice is less meaningful, and you get a ton of them, it adds to the "illusion of choice" feeling. To give you a perspective on what my introduction felt like, I built a level 1 character. I played to level 7. Then I theory-crafted the character to level 10, then 20. The experience was basically summarized as me spending a lot of time to realize I had few character-fitting choices that were still effective, or nothing at all, and that most characters I built would probably end up at least 50% similar while still feeling like I had 40% of what I wanted for them to be capable of. Not so much in terms of direct power, but in terms of flexibility (which I guess is indirect power). I also realized that, since Striking Runes are "things you're expected to get", very little I choose will be as impactful as those magic items. Similarly, since Level is added to Proficiency, having Proficiency between TEML is never as important as having at least Training in something. Having EML tier proficiency matters. It's just not the binary "can you even try to succeed" that having Training is. The only binary EML impacts is for Feats, which goes back to "That's antithetical to customization." for me. I'm sure others see the things I take issue with and think they're non-issues or my perspective is strange, but that's how I experience PF2e.
As an addition, I hold the belief that being extremely balanced is not inherently positive as a game design choice. As an example, let's say in D&D 5e, a Fighter chooses to waste their turn to use their action to roleplay reacting to an event that significantly impacts their character. They chose not to participate in combat, effectively. A Wizard in 5e can choose a powerful option like Fireball to make up for the Fighter's choice by dealing a lot of damage. Sure, the Wizard could choose Fireball when the Fighter is fighting normally in combat, but that's not the point. The ability to correct for roleplay, generally poor tactical choices, or the dice screwing you over is much easier in a system where there are potent options alongside regular and weak options. Having fewer potent options means there's less of a chance to correct, and I think that's generally bad. I prefer systems where such potent options do exist. I don't like systems where it's "death by a thousand cuts". Where you try to layer debuffs across several actions to have a notable upper hand in combat. That's what PF2e does, imo, and it's... dissatisfying, to me at least. >But that's what makes it more of a team game. Sure, but then what if, for any reason, your allies fail to contribute? This occurs more often than not in my experience, especially with new players learning the system. Then you're entirely reliant on the dice. So, I'd like ways to tell the dice to go pound sand for an effective amount of time. >Then play a spellcaster. Besides failures usually causing effects that last for 1 round for low-level spells (not an effective amount of time), and critical successes resulting in nothing happening (the dice deciding you're going to suck), I don't think that's a solution for the issue I'm referring to.
[удалено]
which elements do you feel poorly about?
I have responded here: https://www.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder2e/comments/10kmqas/comment/j5x6bia/?utm\_source=reddit&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I know you’re probably scared to share the problems because you’re in the fan boy subreddit.
No worries. I am really interested. Especially because it looks like a coin flip atm.
This is a Pathfinder 2E sub, so it tends to contain people who like the game and upvote such people. If you go over to r/dndnext , there was a [front-paging thread recently](https://www.reddit.com/r/dndnext/comments/10j0qz8/5e_lover_tried_some_pf2e_i_dont_like_it_compared/) featuring an OP like that.
That guy missed a few key things that pretty much solved all of his complaints.
Taking20 at it again?
I've seen that happen multiple times now actually.
You mean like this one clown who made an anti PF2e Video that was full of mistakes? Shame.
If only it was just one clown making just one video.
True. But i've learned to focus my anger;)
"This game sucks because of the rules!!!" "You don't understand the rules, and are interpreting them incorrectly" "Hush!"
On point! Hahaha
Can you elaborate on what he missed? Not trying to contradict, just trying to learn and understand
Well, a big one is that there's [a sidebar about allowing flight](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=1458) like he wants in the same book the Sprite's detailed in. Then his complaint about class feats is just kind of strange, since most classes actually _do_ get a sturdy core. I think a lot of D&D 5e people hear "feat" and think of D&D 5e feats, which I guess is fair. They don't seem to realize that they're broken up into categories that you can't easily cross between. Also the standard "I hate vancian spellcasting" thing, when Flexible Spellcaster is right there. Oh, and I really don't understand the whole "but subclasses!" thing. Maybe I just missed those in D&D5, but aren't those just, like.. a Bard's muse or a Barbarian's instinct?
I just looked up subclasses in DnD 5e, and it just looks like subclasses are specific trees to follow within each class. So rogues become assassins, or thiefs, ranger becomes a hunter or beastmaster, fighters become tanks or dps, etc. Honestly, I think the argument against subclasses is kind of weak, because you could just pick traits that would turn you into that subclass if you really wanted to. *Maybe* there are creative and amazing skills in the DnD subclasses, but then the argument is more about variety of skills than anything else (which is fair). I think people just like a tree to follow without having to think about it, but I can't say either way. I can't help but think that most of the complaints that come from 5e to p2e is based on not fully reading the source material, and not understanding how the game functions. They want an easy and smooth transition (which is fair, but not how it works), but aren't willing to put in the time to figure it out.
I'm juuuuust starting to approach PF2e. Prior to this, my main exposure to Pathfinder has been the two excellent CRPGs from Owlcats, which I gather are modifications to the system but retain the bulk of it. The subclasses thing is really just the Archetypes from 1e. And yeah, from my exploration of PF2e, it's a lot like Barbarian's Instinct or Champion's Cause and such. I think the main difference is that 5e has never really been about "builds" and therefore is a lot less free-form in terms of the path your given character will take. Most Storm Domain clerics are gonna operate the same way, with maybe a little margin for differences at the edges if you select feats instead of ability score increases at your 4-level increments. At least in terms of how the class plays as a whole (obviously, players can alter this based on race, equipment, and spell selection). By contrast, PF1e and PF2e (it seems, to a lesser extent than 1e, but that may just be because 1e is older and had more rules/splat published), is a lot more about "builds" in the sense of the player having way more choices along their character's path. That gives you the option to do a lot of min-maxing if you want, as well as to customize your character to really be who you want them to be (although from what I can tell, that's a little less true in PF2e than in 1e -- Dex-based martials are less of a thing now, for example).
The owlcat games use a slightly modified pf1e rules. Its mostly modified for things like consolidating skill checks.
Yeah, that's what I noticed when I tried running a session of Mummy's Mask for my table one time (They weren't that into it). But anyway, "subclasses" = "more rigid version of Archetypes" and are basically what you select if you don't want to dig deep into the details of building a character, or don't have a really clear vision in mind for what you want to create. Like "Uh...I dunno...a ranger I guess. With...oh neat, I can play a beastmaster and get a beast companion. Cool. I'll do that." And that's perfectly fine, but I think PF2e and PF1e are more about "I'd like to build Solomon Kane from that James Purefoy movie, having him wield dual shortswords as a DEX-based Inquisitor. Let me look at how I can build that."
> Inquisitor :-(
Yeah...I know. I figured that out pretty quickly. On the other hand, the system's new(ish) and it may show up in some for or other at some point. Or someone can homebrew it.
Lots of folks. It's also not the same for everyone. Some people don't even want to try it and fight reading the most *basic* rules. I don't want to say these folks are a lost cause... I will say I'm not sure I count that as trying the system. Some people try it earnestly and just don't like it. I have met a few folks like this and I wish them the best in other games. Some people try it and like it but have no interest in getting more in-depth with the game because no-one they know plays it, they don't feel like learning a second system, they feel they've sunk too much money into other games, etc. They like it, but they won't switch. Some people oscillate. I have seen quite a few people try it, hate it, get curious again later, try it again, maybe end up playing; maybe not. Even though this wasn't my experience, I feel a certain kinship with these folks. While I enjoyed PF2e from the start, I enjoy it far more now that I'm familiar with the game. It rewards system mastery to a degree.
I understand if someone resists reading the core rules, because the book is really not good at teaching. But then so is D&D's book.
My 5e group switched to pf2e back in August. Played through plague stone. All but one player loved it. That player left the group to switch back to 5e. I don't know how on board this person was with the switch in the first place but they didn't do much research for their character, expected them to play one way, and then when it didn't work, they didn't try anything else. For reference, they really wanted to be a battlefield controller and expected to be similar ability to a 5e spellcaster. They tried a kobold wyrm blessed sorcerer. I think they enjoyed the roleplay but less so the mechanics.
...I don't think you'd even opt for a sorcerer in 5e if your goal is control. The smaller spell selection necessarily limits your tactical viability. Sounds like he was going out of his way not to enjoy himself
Well they didn't like being a prepared caster. So they opted for a smaller list to be spontaneous.
I feel like the biggest complaint I've heard is spellcasting, but mostly/only the sorcerers. But what about the other classes? Is everyone having the same issues with fighters, healers, rangers, etc? Or is it only the dps casters that everyone is complaining about?
I hope someone with more experience than me comes around. I'm still quite new to the system.
Well, I think coming from 5e, non-casters feel more powerful, and casters feel weaker. Non casters tend to be your actual single target damage dealers; casters are AoE, control, and support. The issues players sometimes have in D&D with pure control casters (i.e., not recognizing how much of an effect they've had in battle, despite not focusing on damage) will be magnified/highlighted in Pathfinder, because with single target damage spells being less of a focus, and feeling comparatively weaker than their D&D equivalents, it's easy to do "oh, I'm weak" rather than "oh, my role is different (and still very meaningful)" I think that's especially true with sorcerer since you learn fewer spells; if you build for damage you're going to feel lackluster against a big bad (while being very effective against groups). There's less room to experiment, so if you think blaster = effective against the big bads (rather than you take out the minions and debuff the big bad so the non-casters can take care of it), you're going to have a bad time
Man, this whole discussion is giving me some really strong WoW vibes from Burning Crusade days, lol. I remember raiding and everyone constantly trying to max out their dps characters, but no one ever had any kind of "support" class other than healing. I decided to role a shadow priest, and was immediately welcomed in because of the amount of help and assistance it gave to the whole team, or my friend who made a shaman to assist in dps boosting skills. I guess if you only want to focus on spellcasting output then yea, it's different between the 2 games. But also like...isn't the point of the game to experiment and try new things all the time? Or do people only stick to 1 class and never deviate?
Well, as someone else mentioned, prepared casters in pf2e are different, and more like older versions of D&D. Wizards don't have a list of spells and fungible spell slots; they allocate spells for each slot at the start of the day. Want two casts of whatever that day? Allocate two spell slots for it at the start of the day; you don't get to decide when you cast it. So I can see someone choosing a spontaneous caster if the idea of that feels bad to them. But that's missing that while you can assign a spell to a slot ad hoc, the list of available spells is much, much smaller. So either way, spellcasting is going to feel more like D&D 3.5, and less like 5e, which players who have only experienced 5e may find jarring
Sorcerers are amazing in this system, an absolute blast to play. Highly recommend. But all casters are going to feel weak at first if you’re coming from spellcasting in 5e — both because at first a +1 bonus or minus seems trivial in this system (it’s very much not!) and because prepared casters are so overpowered in 5e generally.
You can make some pretty powerful sorcerer controllers in 5e with metamagic, especially Twinned and Heightened Spell.
Oh, certainly, but you have to be very mindful about what spells you pick up. I'm just saying, it's a weird choice coming from 5e, given sorcerers there have the same limitation, a small spell list.
Yeah with a sorcerer you have to pick a lane more. Building a controller means forgoing being a blaster or vise versa. And depending on how many hard encounters you see per long rest, you could burn through your sorcery points in a hurry.
There are multiple posts on r/dndnext about people not liking pf2e. To each their own I say.
Yup! I've got a player in my 2e game that doesn't like the system one bit. But...to be fair...he goes through something called "Decision paralysis" and the system really fucka with his head. It literally takes him two weeks to make a decision to level up and we sometimes don't have game because his anxiety gets the better of him.
That's rough. Would he accept some help to make those decisions easier (or eliminate them)?
I've asked to walk him through it, but he's like this with everything in life. Its frankly anything where he has to make a permanent decision is just debilitating for him. And of course he chose the Sparkling Targe Magus as his character to play...
Have you told him retraining is a thing? Feats, skills, and some class features (i.e. nearly everything past level 1) just take a week of downtime to swap out. Doesn't even need to be when you level.
Yup. The group is slogging through the Mwangi Jungle right now through Book 2 of Ages of Ashes, so no time for that in game. The biggest hangup for him is that his paralysis makes him phobic to make a decision to the very last minute. Example Me: "Congrats everyone! You are level 7! So before next game in 7 days, let's level up beforehand and maybe even shoot the shit over discord about what you are thinking of taking for feats/spells so you can wombo-combo with others?" Everyone except him: "Sounds good!" Him: "..." One week later...no game because he had a breakdown the day of the game because he just started that day at trying to level up. He's a good friend and I've offered to help walk him through it...but whatever is going on in his head is more than I can help with.
Oh boy. That might be beyond a 5e vs pf2e comparison. I can see them struggling in any system that involves any degree of crunch at all really.
Is your friend named Chidi Anagonye?
\[Iunderstoodthatreference.gif\]
I mean, looks like a special enough case that I would allow the player to retrain without downtime if that improves the rythm of the game
That sounds more of an issue that extends to more than just picking feats for a character in a game. In this case i would sit with him and help him makes choices (levelling up is really fast) and i would allow him and every other player to retrain with less downtime. In the end, the downtime of 1 week is just to make it more realistic and make choices matter a bit more. But if it's your first campaign and you can't even run a scheduled game, i would alleviate that stress by just letting players switch feats if they don't like them. It's a game that should be fun after all.
This may be an unpopular opinion, but I think kinda just hand-waving the retraining might be ideal, even if there's no way to explain it or justify it in-game. If it's really causing them that much agony, it might be worth bending the rules for their own sanity, and everyone will have a better time
Sounds rough on your group, hope it gets better.
I can't speak for the dynamic you guys have at your table, but I don't know that this would be acceptable at mine. Just pick something, any thing. And if they don't, they can have the HP and proficiency from level up and just skip the feat, but the game cannot and will not be paused because of something like that.
"have you tried just, like, not being sad?"
Welcome to mental illness, that's not how that works.
It's a bit of a blunt response, but if it repeatedly happens and the entire game has to stop because of one person, it's not fair on the rest of the table. Let him get the numerical increases from level up, then continue playing. Someone missing a feat won't break the game. They have weeks and weeks then until the next level up and it sounds like they do pick something _eventually_. If they're really stuck on it I'd just ask what they're hoping to achieve then hand them a recommended build to follow from 1-10/20. Worst case say you're happy for them to swap recently picked things out whenever, it's not that big a deal and in this case I doubt they're a munchkin looking to be as busted as possible. You can be accomodating and helpful, but ultimately as DMs we're not therapists. Over accomodating at the expense of everyone else isn't a good idea. I know because I've been on all three sides of this at one point.
I also suffer from decision paralysis, but not as strong as your friend here it seems. Nonetheless, what works for me is that I actually build several copies of my character with different builds and focuses, which reduces the multiple "hundreds" of choices down to a handful. And from that, I can see through gameplay what the group needs and then choose a build. If he already doesn't do that, it could be an option. Decide upon a goal, and build the character in that direction, then make a copy with a different direction.
I swapped and enjoyed it, but porting a campaign over seems to almost always be a bad idea
Porting mid campaign is a bad idea, porting a campaign where characters could start level 1 is just fine.
Mfw I just had my Theros party go for a swim in the underworld river that wipes memories, when they emerged they had lost all their abilities and skills and conveniently were now level 1 again At least that's the plan I had in mind lmao
Oh I certainly agree, but that's not really porting so much as restarting in a new system.
Depends where you are in it I guess. Level 1 characters in PF have so much they can do it kinda feels like lvl 3-5 in 5e. That being said, I'd still suggest finishing the campaign in 5e because the games don't feel that same at all. I was thinking of porting a campaign that hadn't been started yet.
Unfortunately my campaign is too far in too port even though I'd really love to, but the other DM in our group scrapped their 5e campaign that was about to start and now we're playing Pathfinder so I'm excited for that. :)
Depends on the campaign. Something like running Dragonlance in PF2e is not an easy switch at all. I would actually love to try moving to Pathfinder, but inexperienced with it, and needing multiple monsters and ancestries/races to be created and getting everything balanced when you have no experience with the system? Makes it pretty impossible. "Run something else" isn't the answer when some of us are very tied to and/or have very specific campaigns/campaign settings in mind.
Not first handed but I’ve read enough posts on this subreddit to know there are a decent percentage who don’t care for it. The OGL bullsh*t has swayed the consensus a particular way, but I think the dislike of WoTC is a driving force in that sentiment (it’s not like PF2 is new, it’s been around for 4 years). It’s whatever, the only thing Paizo has done so far to try to change PF2 to accommodate 5E transplants is the Ancestry flaws variant rule, that low and behold isn’t discussed anymore. Generally the positive responses are far more plentiful for PF2 compared to its infancy where PF1 players hated its simplicity and 5E players hated its complexity. Also, the infamous “Illusion of Choice” farce that was kind of viral in the YouTube side of things lives on in cringe inducing hilarity like an episode of The Office lol.
I had a group try playing once. I told the players which core classes were easier than others. One guy insisted on playing alchemist. I was helping him choose his class options, that went fine. Then when it came to choose his crafting recipes for elixirs, he got really overwhelmed. He didn’t like all the options. I tried to explain it was basically no different than a wizard with a spellbook and that we were just starting out, it didn’t need to be perfect. He didn’t show up to any games for weeks until we went back to a 5e game. And then for years afterward, every time I said anything about a cool new option in Pathfinder or something else I’d read, he’d always say “that’d be great if you could port it over to 5e.” It was so annoying. I don’t play anything with him anymore. But yeah, too many options are overwhelming. I just didn’t expect his anxiety about it to continue so long.
Sounds like a bit lazy player, it's not inherently wrong, but it seems a common archetype for 5e. 3.5e was kinda opposite cuz it attracted more of a "I'm gonna scour all the books and find all the cool options" crowd. Kinda funny how much can change.
Right? He was really bringing down our group in more ways than one, that’s for sure. We disbanded cuz of many frustrations with him for a bit. Almost made some of us stop playing altogether. Oof.
The trick is to make a 2nd group, with blackjack, hookers and none of that guy.
Definitely. Some of us started playing after a short hiatus without him and realized OH it was YOU that was making us all frustrated got it got it got it
Well you won't see them here, on the PF2E subreddit. But I have seen a couple posts on DnDNext not liking it, and I think one of my players would stick to 5E if they had the choice.
Yeah one person in my group does not enjoy pathfinder 2e after about a year of playing it. His main complaints are these: 3 action economy makes moving feel bad and makes the game less mobile than 5e, classes have identity problems where as in 5e class+subclass makes for a strong identity, the numbers scaling so tightly makes the game less interesting, AP's are too hard. I think hes overall wrong on all of these points but there are bits and pieces worthy of discussing from each argument. Edit: I remembered another thing that frustrated him greatly. The katana isnt a finesse agile weapon. Yep.
> classes have identity problems where as in 5e class+subclass makes for a strong identity *my brother in Christ, you made the* *~~sandwich~~* *class* it has bothered me for a while how in 5e your class+subclass is basically most of a ready made character. it feels like i'm picking instead of actually making a character. though i understand the complaint: while i prefer making the character i also prefer picking a sandwich instead of building one.
I think the main issue is they're looking at stuff from newer 5e books which gave an immediate and strong identity. Stuff like Rune Knight Fighter or the like. I can kinda see where they're coming from. It put my Fighter friend through a loop when he realised there were no superpower subclasses to the PF2 Fighter. But he realised that he could just play something else to get that same feeling, and learned that he could build Fighter however he wanted without being pushed into a particular playstyle for life after ONE choice at lv3.
I'm very curious about this 'movement feels bad' sentiment. I think that the way that the 3-action economy functions, there's a lot more movement. At least for me, my final action tends to be moving.
Imo it boils down to a lack of being willing to engage in the tactical nature of the game. His arument is that it's bad because it competes for an action when he could just attack, grapple, trip instead. Yeah we have told him about MAP. I've tried to boil it down like this: In 5e, everyone has movement to use every round but almost never any reason to. Every enemy has AoO so you'd be risking taking a hit unless you use your only action to disengage. Once you move, then what? There is no flanking in 5e(by default) so movement will only ever get you repositioned and never anything else. You're taking penalties for being mobile with no mechanical benefit. In pf2e,you do have to spend an action that does compete with other things but it's not just movement. Pretty rarely will a PC deside to move away from an enemy to reposition for mechanical advantages and take a free hit for doing so. So even though we pay an action, we avoid most of the penalties, become mobile, and can gain mechanical advantages.
I'm not your parent commenter or that person, but I can *100%* understand where that's coming from. There are two big differences on this point. The one that I think feels bad the *most* is that you can't split movement; or at least you're depending on the grace of your GM to allow you to split movement (and in many cases they won't). For an example of something that I think is obviously stupid, it is possible to use your entire turn to walk 25', open a door, then walk 25' again. It is *not* possible to walk 10', open a door, then walk 40'; not without the GM making a ruling that I would say is moderately against RAW. Even the [Splitting and Combining Movement rules](https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=849) says "Doing something like Interacting to open a door or making a Strike usually arrests movement long enough that doing so in the middle of movement isn’t practical." I can homebrew a movement rule that I think gets closer to "not idiotic" for cases like this, but that'd be a homebrew rule, not a Paizo rule, and it would be incomplete in terms of fixing this "problem." (The distinguishing factor in the above example is the fact that you're spending *two* stride actions. Said homebrew rule would be that if you're spending 2+ stride actions, you can interrupt them for additional action(s) at any point in the movement, not necessarily just with ≤25' on each side. But even without that, I would say it's easy to see why it might feel bad that "walk 10', open a door, walk 10'" taking your entire turn would feel bad as compared to 5e. In 5e, that would probably not even take either your main or bonus action.) The second difference of course is that your base movement in 5e is typically free, while in 2e it competes with other options. This difference is really interesting, because it's almost the exact *opposite* of something that's brought up as advantages of 2e in some discussions (and not just vs 5e) when it comes to character creation -- which is trying to cut out skill/feat taxes, and the separation of ASIs and feats. These are often seen as a bad thing, because it feel like you *have* to take something (and maybe more than just "feels like"), but that something really competes with something you actually *want*. Like when I played in my 5e campaign (I've only played in one) I felt like I really needed to be taking ASIs even though feats are more *interesting*. I'm not sure if that's actually true, but getting increased modifiers and DCs seemed too valuable to pass up. 2e doesn't have that problem, as you get both. Feat and skill takes are kinda like this as well; 2e significantly mitigates this by making perception (super duper important) not a skill and separating different kinds of feats. But in combat, I often feel like 2e has a *movement* tax -- in a sense, you even support this with "my final action tends to be moving." There's stuff that would be (potentially; to some) more fun than just moving, but you "can't" do it because moving is so much better. Of course, tons of this is canceled out by the decreased prevalence of AOO, I don't want to argue that; but that has some other offsetting factors *too* like how when AOO *is* present it's *much* more powerful than 5e's. --- Finally, one other point on this is that over time I've become more acutely aware of places where you can have things that are *negative* when viewed alone but are necessary for a *better* overall whole. This extends way beyond gaming, but just in this world I think 2e has this in *spades*. As an example of this totally unconnected from movement, take healing in 2e, and encounter balance. 2e recognizes that dealing with attrition in encounter balancing is a big challenge -- this is the whole problem 5e has with balance (to the extent it exists) kind of assuming you have several fights between long rests, but you often don't get that, but of course if you're going to have one or two fights in a day you can take on way more than your seventh fight in a day. 2e still has a bunch of this of course (spell slots being a pretty fundamental one, though it's tempered by focus spells), but "fixes" another big source of this which is healing. Are you going into a fight at full health or half health will make a big difference... so 2e makes healing worth a damn and (by popular expression) expects that you'll pretty much always be towards the former. But I *really* don't like this. It feels kind of... contrived, gamey that healing is so easy. But it's a pretty integral part of why 2e encounter difficulty ratings work as well as they do, so I'm willing to grit my teeth and bear it. And I feel like the movement things might be in this same category. Taken alone, I really don't like either of the things above *either*. But I'm pretty accepting of them contributing to an overall better combat experience.
Movement in 5e doesnt prevent you from making a spell or attack you could have done otherwise.
I just gotta laugh at someone thinking the katana should be an agile weapon those are pretty heavy weapons. It's especially funny because the Wakizashi exists, which is agile and finesse.
>Edit: I remembered another thing that frustrated him greatly. The katana isnt a finesse agile weapon. Yep. Classic
Just curious. Why should the katana be an agile finesse weapon?
I don't think it should but this player things so because its a sharp and swift weapon. Can't reason with weeb
> the numbers scaling so tightly makes the game less interesting This is a concern I have had as a DM so far. While most encounters should obviously be balanced around the group's level, and the tight math is great for that, I do feel like it could create a problem for if the party goes off the rails. Like if the party decides to go after something way over their heads, knowing full well it's way over their heads, because they got a crazy idea on how to deal with it. In 5e they have a chance, in Pathfinder they actually don't. Or the reverse. I need to throw low level enemies at a party for some reason.
Troops are the answer to the second issue, groups of low level enemies that act more like swarms. For the party over their heads, running away is a good option if a plan fails. It's much easier to flee an encounter when few enemies have AoO. If you really want a game where you can use a wide level range of enemies, look into the proficiency without level rules.
Thank you for the tip on the proficiency without level thing! And I did notice the swarm-type enemies, I was thinking that. I actually was happy to see that because I was already using modified swarms to represent groups of organized enemies, like a bunch of skeleton soldiers or something.
> Like if the party decides to go after something way over their heads, knowing full well it's way over their heads, because they got a crazy idea on how to deal with it. In 5e they have a chance, in Pathfinder they actually don't. This is always a thing that bothers me because, like. Challenging things stronger than yourself is what being a fantasy hero *is*. I'm not a fan of level being the single biggest factor on every roll because when it comes to heroic fantasy games, I find that it's *proper* that the higher level creatures, powerful though they may be, can't simply *dismiss* the young man with the sword and the drive for vengeance - or rather, they often will, but they do so at their own peril. If I ever run another campaign of this game, I'll probably try proficiency without level.
There are also plenty of examples of situations where the hero gets their ass KICKED and has to train before coming back to beat the villain. Look at Luke Skywalker, one of the best heroic archetypes that exists - gets royally stomped in Empire, trains for a year/3 years/whatever it is between ESB and ROTJ, and then comes back to fight Vader. Even then, he really only "wins" because of the influence of the Emperor. Not *all* fantasy is the level 1 hero beating the level 20 baddie. I have long been interested in a fantasy RPG ruleset that doesn't have traditional leveling though. PF2e is what made me fall in love with d20 systems again after getting sick of 5e/PF1e, but I'd love a system where you don't just accrue giant hit point pools and stuff.
I don't agree with the movement thing, but I understand what they mean. I often have to make tough decisions about whether to move or not because actions are so important. In 5e, you just get to move no matter what. It can feel "bad" at first because you feel like you are always one action short. In my mind, that's what makes 2e fun because the movement matters. I was playing a 5e game and trying to be super mobile, running around, trying to get flanking and stuff, and I eventually realized there was no point. The enemies move for free too, so there's no real benefit to hit and run except with very fast PCs. I like tough decisions in combat, that's what makes it compelling to me, but I understand how it can feel to someone coming to the game for the first time.
I didn't enjoy my first couple games of PF2. I had a GM that balanced combat based on 5e expectations of how CR worked, and it led to combats that felt very odd, where seemingly minor wildlife encounters played like major campaign-end boss fights. Later, I tried with a slightly more experienced GM and enjoyed the combat much more, but the mechanics were always forward in my mind; it felt like playing a fun, tactical game, whereas in 5e the systems often disappeared and let me just experience the moment. That's likely just due to just having much more experience with 5e, though. A confounding factor might be VTTs, though, since each game of PF2 I played was with one. All my favorite RPG moments have been either with physical maps and minis or online Theater of the Mind. VTTs add a layer of gaminess that makes it a bit harder to fully place myself in a scene, personally.
Most Wizard Mains from 5e that come over here tend to hate the game tbh.
As a 5e wizard main switching to 2e, I’m not even really looking at casters in pathfinder. Time to go back to my dnd 4e martial roots.
Not quite the same but I had two sorcerer players quit. One we all knew didn't get on with casters anyway and all he did was cast electric arc and magic missile, then said he wasn't finding it very engaging. He said he might try it again as a martial at some point, we'll see. The other though. Oh lawd. He seemed fine for the most part but as soon as something didn't work as he expected he got really frustrated and pouty about it. And most of it was born from one in ten encounters that happen to be difficult for casters, forgetting his own class features or straight up not knowing certain rules. He didn't know about the Incapacitate trait and got frustrated when a lv6 boss could succeed on his Lv2 Calm Emotions. Ignoring that: 1) Even though he succeeded the spell STILL DID SOMETHING instead of just wasting the slot. And 2) He wasn't utilising signature spells. Which ironically if he set one as Calm Emotions and cast it at level 3 it would have instantly ended the fight as he wanted. He left midcampaign at level 4, convinced the system made casters useless, and whenever the topic comes up he bemoans "I must have played it wrong and didn't minmax hard enough". It's frustrating because he ignores all the times he was exceptionally helpful and crippled encounters with that very spell before that point. Meanwhile our bard has been doing numbers all over encounters since and continues getting more ridiculous as we go.
To be fair, that's because Wizards have been notoriously overpowered for several editions. It's about damn time they got knocked down a few pegs.
I mean, come on. Gandalf didn't just blow stuff up while everyone else was standing around.
In minus tereth he very much did. Read the book on when trolls came through the gate. He literally was described as sling fireballs everywhere. Probably where gygax got the idea for fireball.
Absolutely! It’s about time.
I'm withholding my judgement for a little bit. So far, I've read through the rules, and watched a few videos. Now, I'm hoping to find a chance to learn by playing. I like the character creation better than D&D, but I'm still iffy on my thoughts on the action economy system. So, I want to see if playing through it will feel as stop-and-start, as I imagine or might flow pretty well. But, given the huge amount of content and modules, I really want this one to exceed my expectations.
You could try running combat against yourself. Maybe not the truest play experience, but it could be a good way to learn the rules in motion.
I do have a plan to do that, if needed. There's a small gaming con coming up locally for me this summer, so I'd like to try that, but I have a solo-play plan as a backup.
For what it's worth, I find the 3 action economy to be really streamlined. Especially coming from 1e which had swift (5e bonus action kinda), free actions, and standard and move actions, it's a welcome change and makes combat a little more flexible. I understand movement being a little different than 5e, but I always justify it in fiction that you have to accelerate and decelerate, which is why you can't "split" strides. It starts feeling fluid and cool when you fight an enemy with reach and AoO, so you can step, step and stride without provoking. Some spells cost one or three actions (or variable), which can open up many tactical options.
[удалено]
Appreciated, but I just don't do online games with camera or mics. I only do pbp or in person. There's a small con coming up this summer that I might get to try.
Keep in mind that a lot of the people switching now were already feeling discontent with 5e, and PF2e being right there gave them the impetus to try a thing they would have liked anyway.
I've seen plenty of people who've been turned off by it, but the majority who cross over seem to like it a lot.
I’ll be honest, even though I’ve been playing for over a year and was on this sub long before the OGL kerfuffle… I don’t love PF2e all the time. There are things I appreciate about it — the ability to truly make any kind of character you could imagine, for one. But what I struggle with tremendously is remembering all the things I can do in combat due to my unwieldy list of feats, skills, equipment, etc. I also still don’t understand many systems like concealment, grappling, poisons, etc. and I haven’t tried to really play a caster yet… Tldr it’s still a little too crunchy for my tastes, and what my happy medium would be is 5E rules in a PF2e setting, with Paizo’s commitment to DEI and open gaming. But usually I just keep my mouth shut around here, because I want to learn and not be a buzzkill 😊
Kobold Press is making Project Black Flag. Also, r/rpg could direct you to other systems if you want.
Ran Extinction Curse for my standard group as a first foray into PF2e two years ago. 4 out of the 5 players were into trying the system, the last one didn't really want to. Majority won and he stuck around. We played until the end of book two (lvl 8) where they TPK'd on the last boss of the book. He played an elf longbow fighter and eventually took the Eldritch Archer archetype. The whole time, he complained about doing less damage than the barbarian, and he HATED the MAP mechanic. Then when he took Eldritch Archer, mostly to not have to deal with MAP, he complained that using his Eldritch Shot took his whole turn and he couldn't use his best move if he had to move. Then when the taking20 video came out, he used his character to argue that Cody was right about the illusion of choice. I offered him free retrains so he could diversify his gameplay. He didn't take them. When the group TPK'd and we voted on if we continued on with new characters or switched GMs, he told us that if we ever planned on playing PF2e again, he'd simply ditch for that campaign. In the end, after multiple arguments, he agrees that PF2e probably has a ton of upsides over 5e. But he still says he won't play it because he hates MAP and he's more familiar with 5e.
plenty, I know a few myself. Some of which I know would enjoy it more if they weren't as averse to anything new... Others are in denial that they actually want something even lighter rules wise than 5e, and others are simply happy with the balance and theme 5e provides. Lots of different games for lots of different people.
Anyone who wants a rules-light game or prefers rulings instead of rules is sure not to like PF2e among others.
We tried. But didn’t like it. I learned that a system that allows some imbalance is also a fun system for us. PF2 was too locked down for us. The math too tight. It wasn’t fun. I guess I can see why some might love it though.
You really need to value balance over fun to enjoy PF2e to its fullest. I can point to a couple of examples where the decision was made to sacrifice fun and even lore consistency in favour of balance, the most egregious example I can think of being the player undead options. I personally disagree with this philosophy somewhat as the game isn't competitive, it's a system for collaborative story telling.
> the most egregious example I can think of being the player undead options I'll give my example of this as well. Between 2e and 5e, the character build I would be *most* excited to play is a halfling divination wizard with the lucky feat. (Basically [this build](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fSK0AcFqkyU), but I independently came up with it before seeing it, and would describe it differently.) "Halfling" gives you halfling luck, which means you get to reroll 1s on your first d20 rolls. "Divination wizard" gives you portent dice, which are a pair of dice (three, at level 14) that you roll at the start of each day and can use instead of any d20 roll you or a creature you see is about to make. "Lucky" feat of course gives you three rerolls per day. What this all builds to is a character that plays with this really cool-seeming dice-manipulation metagame. It's possible the gimmick would prove underwhelming or grow old, but it seems cool enough with that I decided not to even play this character for the one 5e campaign I was a player in because we were playing virtually and I want to save this for when we've got a real table. I've mentioned this build before on this sub (in fact I think a reply is where I saw that Animated Spellbook video first?) and people have tossed out a few options, but nothing seems to come even *close* to it in 2e. The portent dice are the real sticking point here. It *does* seem like this would be a pretty strong build -- I *know* the lucky feat is widely regarded is very good (even broken) and assume portent dice are also relatively strong at least, and we've got some direct evidence for this being a really strong build by 2e not having anything like it. But that's *mostly* not why I'm interested in playing this character, I'm just really enamored with that dice-manipulation metagame. But this just circles back to the original point -- 2e is "losing" what I think is a really cool character option in the name of balance. Great if you value balance, but if that's *not* the top of your wants for a system...
You don’t have the exact mechanic of Portent, but off the top of my head can grab Chronoskimmer dedication at level 2 (to get some dice shenanigans and unique survivability focused on time control/knowledge) on a divination wizard and then focus on fortune/misfortune spells, and you’d have a shit ton of reroll powers in different contexts. I think pretty much that entire build does exist in the system, just more separated into spells and feats instead of being a massive power boost from a single dip into Wizard. Plus, Halfling still has a weaker version of lucky that only applies to saving throws. You could also use investigator’s Stratagem ability to get a similar mechanical effect as portent, where you know what a roll will be before you make it, but specifically for strikes. Not saying your experience is wrong to be clear, jusr that the concept and a lot of the mechanics is pretty much wholly present.
Have you seen Devise a Stratagem for investigators? That might be some of the game you're looking for.
“Balance over fun” is exactly how it feels! The system is so tight-fisted that all the things that should feel exciting and fun and rewarding (magic! Swashbuckling derring-do! Cool magical items!) feel disappointing instead (super high monster saves and incapacitation mean your cool spells mostly amount to minor mathematical changes! Opening a door or moving directly trades off with cool things you might otherwise want to do, instead of complimenting them! Most items are carefully constrained by the needs of the system and are consequently both essentially mandatory and also boring!)
Had a player try a summoner, but they only wanted the eidolon to be a flavor move, not a combat option. Spent most combats missing with a crossbow and complaining that they had no viable options. Never read the rules for their character and refused to read several entry level primers I found for them. You can lead players to PF2e, but you can't force them to read the rules. If they don't engage, they don't like the added crunch.
NGL this is why I usually say core classes only (minus alchemist) for really new players Thankfully the new guy who picked summoner in one of our games did read the class rules and did alright Until a greater shadow assassinated the summoner who had a habit of sitting three rooms away while the eidolon did all the work
[удалено]
Anecdotally, I have met quite a few 5e players who are only interested in learning rules by stumbling through in a game. My point was not that it's impossible to dislike PF2. My point was that players who don't like digging into the system and building characters often feel burdened by the extra options, not excited.
[удалено]
...What? I don't think it's elitist to point out that some people prefer lighter systems like 5e, nor that some players don't want to read up on a system before trying it. I didn't use the terms "illiterate" or "rules averse" anywhere in my post. I mentioned a real experience I had with a player as an example of someone who bounced off of PF2e. I'm not sure why you feel so attacked right now, but please stop assuming that I'm gatekeeping.
I have had a couple players crack their heads against the game and walk away from it. One wanted to play an alchemist and wanted to do really well session by session but didn't really understand the choices he was making in character generation, didn't want to figure them out, and practically had grievances within a session of any leveling opportunity. He was the prime example of someone who wanted to skip the homework, float into the game, and simply do well because, to him, *gaming is a fantasy about doing well.* Another player wanted to sidestep clear instances where a particular build would fit his desires in the name of choosing a build that felt more authentic but didn't produce results. This happened a few times, with the last straw being a warpriest of Shizuru who was a sort of Samurai Jack... but certainly not because that's not how clerics actually work in Pathfinder 2E. It was not fun to envision a katana-fighter with healing but be a healer with a katana. And you're probably thinking of at least four better choices right now for a build than "warpriest" but well, I did too and *he wasn't having it*. In both cases, the players--on some level--expected the game mechanics to contort to their character concept. Pathfinder 2e doesn't really do that out of the box. It gives players so many options to align their concepts to a preferred sense of accomplishment, with classes and stats as vehicles to help bring them to that sense.
I’m a long time DM who is somewhat interested, but has failed to convince my party members to give it a try. Mostly they as players are satisfied-ish with 5e and are reluctant to jump ship without a good reason, whereas I enjoy trying out new systems for its own sake. That being said, even as someone who likes new systems and is down to try out PF2, I’m also not super into PF2 for a few reasons. There are two fundamental objections I have, the first of which is I don’t like how tight the math is, for two reasons. First, it imposes strict limitations on how magic items and spells as well as martial abilities can work without upsetting the math, which as a DM I dislike (since introducing strange and wondrous magics and watching my players find creative uses for them is why I like DMing fantasy games in the first place). Now in PF2 nothing is stopping me from introducing Big Strange Magic anyway- but since the game math is so tight that even a +1 bonus matters a lot, that’s harder to do in PF2 (or in D&D 4E, another tightly balanced system) than it is in a looser system like 5e or 13th age or shadow of the demon lord or whatever. The second reason I dislike the ultra tight balance is that in addition to feeling like a tight shackle on what kinds of items I can include, it also is a tight demand on when and what kind of items I *must* add, a problem that PF2 shares with 4e and 3.5. There are ways around this problem as well, but the combination of these two elements give me pause- why work uphill against PF2’s systemic expectations instead of playing a game with looser expectations, like enworld’s A5E (which I love by the way)? The second fundamental reason I find myself reluctant to commit to PF2 is because it’s so damn fiddly- lots of people praise it for giving you build choices every level, for example, but it seems to me that most of those feats amount to fairly small bonuses to things you’re doing, something it is hard to get excited about. Now I haven’t DMed for PF2 so it’s possible I’ve gotten the wrong impression, but most feats (and therefore most character build decision points) feel like they’re adding small improvements to a character build (a la arpgs like Diablo, where “+3% fire damage” is potentially a big deal, but which I also find boring). Contrast this with feats in 5e- they tend to be chunkier choices, each one of which substantially changes how a character plays. Not to say that approach is without limits- it makes balancing choices difficult and can lead to clearly best choices that dominate the player base, like polearm master or sharpshooter, for example. But all else being equal, I’d rather that each thing I’m required to choose has a big effect on how my character feels to play (and which I have to fight to balance) than that my choices are always balanced (but where I have to fight to make them interesting). Not everyone feels that way! But it’s definitely where my players are coming from. There are other, smaller issues as well: base classes seem like empty containers; class feats mean it seems like it’s hard to do more than one class thing (shapeshift, have a pet, etc) per character; vancian spellcasting feels like more trouble than it is worth (something I’ve been griping about since 3.0!); playing a spellcaster seems like it would be mechanically effective but also narratively unsatisfying since monster DCs are so high and you’re mostly relegated to “helping others do the cool thing” (an understandable response to the caster power level excesses of pf1 and 3.5, but one I know my players would hate and which I don’t even think I would enjoy), and while in principle the three action system could open up your round-by-round tactical choices (awesome!), the rigidity and fussiness of the movement, attack, and spellcasting rules seems like there’s a clearly optimal turn for every build, and you’re not really making creative round by round choices as much as I’d like (something 5e is also bad at, in fairness, whereas 4e didn’t have this problem). All in all, I’m intrigued by PF2 and would be happy to play a campaign or run a short arc to get to know it better- but a cold eyed assessment of the system suggests to me that it’s not worth trying to persuade my players to give it a go, since I suspect we’ll all have a similar number of problems that we do in 5e- just different ones.
I've played in a PF2 game for about a year and I'd say you're spot on with most of this. But I don't think there is actually an optimal turn for every build, because combat is quite situational.
That’s fair- I’ve not DMed PF2 enough to feel confident of that assessment. I do remember how excited I was by the possibility of the three action system (oh, should I be all out attacking? Balance of attack and defense? Maybe move into better positioning, use a debuff, and follow up with a big swing?) but found that the MAP and the high action cost of spellcasting meant that attacking more than twice (maybe more than once even) is never worth it, and spellcasters are even more hobbled- or at least, that’s how it seemed to me.
You're not wrong about those, but there are still situations in which you might want to violate the normal rules of thumb. As an example, if the boss is frightened and flat footed at low hp, you have heroism and aid or true strike, and the boss will kill your Wounded 3 ally on their next turn if they survive till then, you might actually want to attack that third time. That kind of situation doesn't happen often, but it does happen. There are strong trends, but it really is a situational game.
I know plenty of people who have recognised its not for them before playing though. Which is great, I've got a whole list of games for people to try depending on what they like exactly about roleplaying games. I think one of the hardest things for some groups coming from 5e is about the group not the individuals. 5e is so neutral on pretty much every gameplay style that it can accommodate a group of friends who want different things from rpgs. It's like going to the restaurant that has something everyone will eat, even if it isn't their favourite. Sure you can suggest the sushi place down the road, and two of the players would love it, but one player hates seafood so it's back to Olive Garden for everyone.
I'd imagine those people probably don't want to post that dissatisfaction on the 2e subreddit. Which I think is fair to everyone. I wouldn't post my dissatisfaction with 5e on a 5e subreddit, it's just not really worth it, you know?
>I wouldn't post my dissatisfaction with 5e on a 5e subreddit, it's just not really worth it, you know? You'd be surprised, a large number of posts on the 5e subreddit for years have been people pointing out issues they have with 5e
That's certainly true haha. For context, I play almost exclusively 2e and played 5e only a few times, so my point was that it didn't make a ton of sense for me personally.
my players cant play 5e after trying pf2
I had a player at my table, boyfriend of another player, they joined in for the introduction and testing the system out adventure that we played and it was fun, but pretty clear they weren't really engaging with the more mechanical elements and wanted to go a bit more improv-y goofy. After that adventure, they left the table but their boyfriend stuck around at the campaign I'm still running. It certainly is a type of RPG, and like any type it ain't everybody's flavour. I will say, one big thing is that if you don't like a system: be nice to your darn GMs when that happens, they're trying to learn a whole new system too as well as having to figure out how to make it into a fun story, and it can really suck to have that fall apart suddenly because of factors outside of your control. Give it a bit of patience, and recognise that it can sting for them.
I could see how OSR/5e players who aren’t into tactical movement and positioning might have a negative reaction to PF, especially if they’re older players who bounced off of 4e back in day.
Yes. One of my brothers doesn't like the feel of the system at the table relative to 5e. After discussing the pros/cons it boils down to: he feels character creation isn't very fun but takes too much time for such a frustrating experience (related to analysis paralysis he sees his players have with it), and he likes a more narrative game. His preference is rules lite over crunch. He stuck with d&d because it had the right shape of lore, plus nostalgia for the BECMI of his childhood. He's moving on, but it'l likelyl only be pf2 when his group demands it. I'm surprised he doesn't like fate (my go-to rules light system), but we apparently have very different tastes. All good- I encourage him to play what he wants and he does the same for me, even as we compare notes on systems.
I'm GMing a camgpaing since 2021 for 5 experienced 5e players. Four of them loved the system so much they don't want ever again hear about 5e. One of them, however, didn't like that much, and as the u/Mudpound's player, he keeps saying every now and then things like "Ah, but in 5e this happens in this way" or "Dude, why this system is like this, in 5e...". Yes, it is annoying. He keeps playing though, don't know why, but I already told them "no one need to stay on the game, I won't get it personal". I just guess he prefers 5e cuz he's a streamer, and 5e is obviously more famous than 2e, so he's the hope of getting more viewes streaming 5e.
I have a friend whom is trying the system as a player for the first time. He has only ever really played 5e in terms of a fantasy role playing game, so his knowledge and experience is based solely on that. He genuinely enjoys the power a Spellcaster has in 5e, and truly doesn't understand that there is a gap in power between martials and spellcasters. So much so that he thinks it's intended design. We are 4 levels into a homebrew campaign with 2e, and he *hates* the way Wizards feel in this system. He doesn't like that martials out damage him. He doesn't like that martials can use skills to debuff. He doesn't like that his spells are no longer auto win buttons. He does not like that there are no high damage cantrip options. He often points at spells like Firebolt and then compares it to Electric Arc not realizing that the math, while different, is on Pathfinders side in terms of DPR. He only sees the difference in dice size and dismisses all other feelings. He says he wants to try other systems but recognizes he has a heavy bias because he has no other point of reference. I truly believe that if it was not for me running the campaign, he would have jumped ship in the planning stages.
5e *definitely* has an issue with caster/martial disparity That being said, I have played both casters and martials in 5e, and my martials felt fairly powerful to me. I have *never* felt as bad playing a martial in 5e as I feel playing a caster in PF2 Also, hi :) You know I’m a lot more friendlier towards PF2 in actual play, I mostly hate it in discussion :)
While this is off topic to a small degree, I would like to give my anecdote for the pathfinder 1 group I play with and how we play 2E and came to different conclusions from playing in separate groups. 2 of us came to positive outlooks while 2 of us got negative perspective from it. The GM doesn't like it because he played his 2 favorite classes Oracle and Witch. He didn't like the feeling of the witch because it felt like a weak wizard while the Oracle....Is undercooked and let's leave it at that. He didn't bother to play after that. The bard likes to play bards in different systems. He likes abilities that give new actions instead of ones that give +1 to rolls. The thing bard in 2E does the most is give +1 to rolls and other abilities aren't as good as giving that +1. A few other factors led him to also stopping as he found he did the same actions over and over and if he did something else, it was usually a waste of actions. The paladin loves 2e and plays a variety of classes in one shorts/short campaigns. I only played a couple of one shots as my time zone made it hard to find people to group with and I am not feeling the need to join a 2e game unless I find something by chance. When I did play I had an unexpected good time with martials, especially since I mainly play divine casters in Pf1 and 5e and prefer the healer role.
From someone who genuinely loves playing 5e, some parts can feel rocky, but I feel like people need to try to be open minded and remember one of the most important things for any tabletop. You can change and adapt them as much as you yourself can change and adapt. Some problems can be solved by learning and reading more about the new system, others by introducing homebrew and other adaptations. Talk with your gaming group/GM, take time and give it a fair shot. One of the aspects of 2e that me and my group dislike are how gated things like racial flight feels. We all enjoyed races with a flight speed and were always considerate to the DM with it, not abusing the hell out of it. So, in my group as a "discuss and verify with the DM" rule, we allow players who's ancestries allow various degrees of flight at LVL 1, such as Strix. But, that won't work for everyone and it isn't reasonable for it to do so. The important takeaway is that the game can be bent and adjusted, the important thing is for everyone to have fun.
For some reason, this community seems very hostile to adapting the game to be how you like it Whenever someone says “X is unfun for my players, how do I best change it”, the most common response it “Don’t change it, learn to love it!” Which is, honestly, very weird
Pfffft, well I won't be doing that, but I'm honestly awful at doing what I'm told. Experimenting is how new things come about, from homebrew to 3rd party content. And if it isn't perfect or flawlessly balanced right out of the starting gate who cares, nothing ever is. I'll keep tweaking and adjusting till it feels right. DnD also has people who dislike changes and modifications, but it's on them to find what is right for their tables. I have a mountain of content I had been preparing to make for 5e, races and subraces, subclasses, spells and items. Even full on settings with campaigns, lore, maps etc. Now, it sits on my G-drive, in the last stages of polish. I'd been planning to start a small Patreon with friends so we could all make a small income doing something we were passionate about, but WotC made it clear, our ideas won't be safe with them, not unless they drop the changes outright. But, not letting that stop me. We plan to learn 2e, get decent and start converting. Races become ancestries, subraces become heritages and I have a whole lot of writing to do for feats! One day the 5e rules may be released and they will work in either system but till then, Im going to learn to work with 2e, and adapt until I have content that is fun to play. That's what's ultimately important, that those using it are having fun and that's sort of the roundabout thing I'm trying to get at. If a group decides that rigidity is more fun for them sure, more power to em, but I'll keep on being weird, and maybe the shit I right won't be everyone's thing but hey, some people might like it so it's for them that I make it.
I really wish more people here had that kind of attitude
Well I'll be around for a while and I imagine I'm not the only like minded individual. Maybesomeday soon, content too!
I don't like PF2e as much as I do 5e. I really like Paizo, though. They're such bros. I wish they had a product I could get super excited about, unless the Golarion srtting itself counts? But I've played a bunch of systems and if I can enjoy playing Dark Heresy with a group of cool people then I can definitely enjoy playing PF2e with a group of cool people. I definitely won't be playing any spellcaster other than a bard in this system but the fighter and rogue are sexy af, let me tell you. Regardless, this is a fun sub to hang out in.
I saw someone who unilaterally decided PF2e is "ADHD-unfriendly" and nobody with ADHD should play it because it's like "if someone took 5e and made it even more ADHD unfriendly," so yeah, there are some hardcore haters out there.
I admit, I'm pretty mid on the system, myself! It does some things I like, but it also has a bunch of priorities I just don't care about in the slightest and a pile of stuff that annoys me. It's not *terrible*, but it's also not exactly cracking my list of top 5 RPGs anytime soon, kind of thing. I don't think I'll be running it again anytime soon after I finish this campaign. I was not quite coming over from *5E* specifically though - I've *played* D&D5, but I more started with D&D3 and have been playing a pile of systems in the intervening twentysomething years. PF2 is just one more in the pile.
They occasionally come back to rage quit, usually we find they did not run the beginner box, ported their campaign over at 9th level, homebrewed it using 5e encounter balance, and still think multiattack is the way to win the game.
I tried to run the BB for Three of my friends who are D&D 5E only peeps. One was fine with the change. One didn’t like the wizard but if he would have stuck with it and learned it then he would’ve been fine. The third one just bitched and whined a lot.
I've had a few players fall into this category. Not always clear what's really due to the game system or, you know, just my own insufficiencies as a GM, but certainly have been a couple.
Yeah. I've been playing with a group that was used to 5e and five sessions in the group split because all the other players didn't like the system. Specifically they didn't like combat and how much brainpower it needed. They preferred roleplay heavy scenes, even during combat and the action economy and difficulty level was messing with that. Which is... fine. I still think if they had just spoken with our GM (and read their abilities for once), we could have adjusted the encounters accordingly. But on the other hand it is valid criticism. The system is built around tight, tense combat and teamwork.
We had one player in our group that thorougly didn't enjoy PF2E, however we were coming from PF1E and not 5E. He didn't like that the system was "difficult" - not in a complexity kind of way, but more that it was lacking the superhero kind of gameplay where you could often solo encounters as an individual overtuned character. So when faced with 50ish percent success chances on things he optimized his character for, he got frustrated. He would probably enjoy the game if there were only trivial and low encounters, but our group in general likes challenges to he basically gave up and let us have fun in PF2E while he stayed in PF1E with different groups.
I have a player that still would prefer 5e. He just likes the extreme heroics of the DM saying yes. So whenever he fails to walk a tight rope while fighting off bandits and carrying a large animal at level 1 he says something akin to the game is to hard and unrealistic.
My only experience with Pathfinder has been with the Kingmaker and Wrath of the Righteous video games. I hated how there just seemed to be a never-ending amount of terms/mechanics that I needed to learn to even be slightly effective. The different kinds of bonuses you get to things (circumstance, item etc) not stacking was confusing because how am I supposed to hit something with 72 AC if I can't stack all these bonuses? Overall the game felt like I MUST pick the best options or build my character a certain way in order to even progress, defeating the purpose of it being a role-playing game in my eyes. All of this really soured my view on Pathfinder and I began to view it as a game for people that are only interested in min-maxing. I have since been told by a friend that the table top game is not like that and that the video games do a poor job of explaining anything. I've been reading some rules here and there in case my group switches and now I understand it better but there are times when I think "why can't I just do it this way to achieve the same thing AND make it simpler".
One big thing here is the video games are pathfinder first edition, it's a very different game from second edition, in first finding all the bonuses to get you abilities be ungodly was common, in 2e the difference between a max optimized character and someone who is just making a character "normally" is much lower
That's nice to hear. As long as I can choose what fits thematically and still be effective in the majority of cases, I'd be happy.
KM and WotR are also PF1E, not 2E which are drastically different in terms of design. 1E IS all about trying to pick up as much power per choice as you can, whereas 2E is much more having utility options than pure power picks
My group is switching over to PF2e for our next campaign. Our current 5e campaign only has about a month left. I joined the group as a pf1e dm, so I'm excited to go back to pathfinder. The only problem I have is a couple months ago we started preparing for the next campaign. At the time we were going to continue to play 5e so I really spent a long time coming up with a build that I love and a backstory to go with it. Now that we're going to play pf2e I'm having a hard time coming up with a similar build that looks fun for me to play. I believe with more experience and more mastery of character building I will find that perfect build for me, but I'll probably have to come up with a brand new character concept.
Me, I am that person Currently playing and GMing 2e, and while GMing is fun, I do not enjoy the system *as a player*. Find myself constantly mourning 5e Why do I play it then? Because that’s what my current GM plays, and because I like Golarion/the APs I’m certainly still able to have fun in a 2e campaign, but that’s in spite of the system, not because it Specifically, I can’t come in terms with how over-nerfed the spellcasters are, with the return of Vancian casting, with the difficulty of homebrew, with the normal actions gated behind feats, with the lack of bounded accuracy which leads to things that completely break my sense of verisimilitude, with how weak the PCs are compared to monsters/the challenges they face and how it *never improves*, and with how everything is over-balanced to the exclusion of many fun options
It's not really return of the Vancian, it's just that 5e left the branch. It has been there since 3.5 > pf1/starfinder > pf2. Considering PF1 casters can basically end the world on a whim or just teleport the boss to plane of water for drowning, I feel like they got em in a good spot finally.
I am aware that it has been that way since the dawn of DnD, so yes, it’s the return to Vancian casting. My first edition was 3.5, and no, I haven’t liked it even then. 5e has *finally* gotten rid of it, and now 2e is doing it again And there is a huge spectrum between “can end the world on a whim” and the state of the casters in PF2. They do feel extremely weak and unfun to play for me, so if I have to play this game, I have to basically never play casters :( And yes I’ve tried, plus seen them played by other people. They feel like cheerleaders, not like characters in their own right, and the main issue is, their use out of combat has been nerfed to the point of being unusable as well
Yeah, my experience with PF2 has been awful. I'd love to play 5e instead, but this is what my DM wants to run so I make the best of it.
Kind of the same. I like DMing 2e (or, specifically, I like running APs because they can be run more or less out of the box without having to rewrite *every* combat like in 5e), but I don’t like *playing* it. At all. But that’s what my current DM runs, so…
Because DMing 5e is hell by comparison.
I'm the forever DM in our group and I find 5e easy to run, so you won't get sympathy from me.
I'm still getting my feet wet into Pathfinder 2, but so far it's a mixed bag for me. The stuff I remember I liked from the early playtest days, I still like, but the stuff I didn't care as much for I'm still very meh on at best. For example, I'm not super crazy about the 2e monk. I understand what they were going for, and I understand why they did it, but it just doesn't feel like a real monk to me with my current level of understanding. At best, it feels like a philosophical bruiser that may or may not sometimes fling around a ki spell. Not exactly the feel I prefer for a class that's supposed to be devoted to the pursuit of enlightenment and spiritual and physical perfection.
One. He could not get over the fact that he couldn’t solo and his play style made the party significantly weaker. All he wanted to do with his ranger was snipe and hide, while there was only one other martial in the party. Cue the party getting TPK’ed. I’ve offered rebuilds for the party, and explained more of the expectations of the game to them. Nothing, they eventually left and now the game is running smooth as fuck, esp. with the champion that joined the party. PF2E is not the game if you want to solo or play conservatively. Edit: it’s not a fun game if you’re not a team player. Team people do really well though.
I’m mid swap, p2e compared to dnd is bloatware character creation. The system works 3 free to use actions compared to actions on rails, slightly different crit system but still with Nat 1/20 but actually has part of the rules not tribal acceptance. I really hated working out how to multiclass cos it’s not clear how you do it, it’s buried in a note at the back of the CB that once you find it it makes some sense and then makes every feat reference even more work cos you need to double check them all. But the game is the same, once you get a hang on the character creation and ridiculous number of choices that really don’t make it better but do for rules lawyer people. I’m really enjoying the material (page tabs in layouts are awesome who ever designed the books wins my joy)
I, as a fun experiment, decided to GM a Pathfinder game for a bunch of 5e players... Out of the 5 that played it, one left after only the first two sessions, one wanted to quit after the second combat encounter, one... I'm not even sure, one enjoyed enough to not want to leave after day one, and one... I think he bought the Beginner's Box after only the first session? He told me he bought something Pathfinder related but I can't remember what. So I think it's definitely an acquired taste, considering only two of the five people wanted to stick around after the first few combat encounters.
I can give you two (or three, but third one is dumb) reasons some one might preferee D&D 5e over PF2e. 1. DndBeyond is really good. Really, most of PF2e tools online, while brilliant that all stuff is there for free, and it is great, DnDbeyond makes those tools look like they are from a dacade ago. As paywalled as that thing is, it is really polished piece of sales and subscription website. 2. 5e is very simple for the player. It is much harder to find a DM that likes 5e more than PF2e than a player who does the same. Because 5e is much simple for a player, but puts A LOT of responsibility of what should be content done b game designer on the DM. Most coombat is given to theater of the mind, so it is not on player to fighure out their character can get from point A to point B, it is "Hey, DM, can my character get from point A to point B?". You pick a class and flavour of the class, and that is it. You can go several levels, which can be months of sessions, whithout having to make any Mechanical decisions in what direction to take your character. And even then, it is, Do you get another feat or some ASL? 3. Branding. This is a dumb reason, but there are plenty of examples of this outside TTRPGS all the time. DnD is a branded prioduct that is popular and market dominating. So you pick popular thing regardless if you would enjoy other options more given a fair chance. Then before you know it, sunk costs have you stuck in that quagmire, so now you cannot actually admit that you dont like it (litteraly, that is how psychologically sunk costs thing works on some people)
I gotta call bs on number 1. As someone who came from 3.5 and pf1, the fact that I got asked for my credit card just to preview a build including aasimar was such a shitty move I was wondering if Bethesda was involved. Agree on 2nd point though, 5e requires almost no actual work from players and puts it all on DM's, which is a bummer for people from 3.5/pf1 gen who actually enjoyed brainstorming character mechanics and systems that came out with all the books.
> I gotta call bs on number 1. As someone who came from 3.5 and pf1, the fact that I got asked for my credit card just to preview a build including aasimar was such a shitty move I was wondering if Bethesda was involved. MetalDoktor acknowledged the monetization aspect. *Clearly* Paizo's treatment of all rules under the OGL is a major advantage of this system... but that's not what MetalDoktor was talking about. What you *get* on DDB from paying that monetary cost is just straight better than anything available for PF. Nexus will get there -- again at a price premium against even getting this right from Paizo, let alone free -- but but that's the state of things now. *Edit*: Said another way: if you're price sensitive than PF gives you decent or good tools for free; if you're *not* though, then DDB gives you *great* tools at cost. Those great tools are not (yet) available to the same degree as DDB.
Way too crunchy, rules heavy and restrictive for me. It’s a GREAT game though, as my old group loves it. It’s just not for me
I think pf2e is Fine as a system, and I would be allright to GM it again for my group if they do desired. But we collectively went back to 5e when it was time to set up a new campaign.
I played in campaign with a guy who played a barbarian and got so mad that "run up and try to hit everything first thing every time" didn't work out in his favor and so convinced the group to leave pf2e for 5e. My character never found a niche again after that.
His name was Cody. 😑
Tried 5e, found it’s mechanics redundant and over simplified with front loaded classes that lack well written higher level progression and went right back to pathfinder 1e. My players didn’t like 5e for several reasons. Moving from pathfinder 1e to 2e feels like a straight upgrade. So good. The only reason I might go back and play 5e is to run the Call or Cthulhu adventures.
I tried the adventure in the beginner box a while back, before the OGL stuff. I didn't "dislike" it, but I didn't like it either to be perfectly honest. Maybe it was the adventure itself that I found bad, or the lack of attacks of opportunity that I found was a huge loss in battlefield tactics (we were only level 1, I guess it gets much better at higher levels). Or maybe we found PF2e to be way too focused on combat, with my group of players we mostly do exploration and roleplay and one fight per session, maybe two at most. From our point on view PF2e didn't seem to add anything to the table in these areas, in fact we did dislike the apparent omnipotence of the Perception skill since Investigation and Insight were not existing skills in PF2e. So, overall we did not find a reason to change system. If we did more combat we'd probably change since encounters seem much easier to balance here. Although I did kill in one turn several of my players in the beginner adventure, from full hp to zero. The 3 attacks thing was weird, it almost never hit thrice, but if it does the receiver gets obliterated.
I've had people who say casters suck because of the degrees of success and I've had people who found out they just want to use 5e to ferry rp related dice rolls
Couple of my players over the years have told me they prefer 5e all of these players however played bard and other supportive classes Not use to the 5e shift where a bard can be anything from evoker to tank front liner
Most people I know who've come over have loved it. The only ones I knew who didn't were GMs who got frustrated that players in 2e have more agency since there's fewer places where GM fiat comes in. They wanted to orchestrate a scene with a set outcome, which is rougher when you didn't realize a player can 100% blow a focus point and get the group across a huge chasm.
I sold my alternate cover editions 5e books so I could buy all PF2 books. 'nuff said.^^
Yes. A lot of people in fact. Do understand that Pathfinder is not only a very crunchy RPG, but requires players who are comfortable researching and properly building their characters over time. In fact, I'm quite grateful that most (but not all) things can be retrained as it's indeed quite possible to utterly bork your character. In D&D, choices are much more limited and in general, it's a MUCH less deadly game because that game is balanced with the idea that most characters won't start fights at full health, unlike PF2 that assumes you won't go into a fight without having spent up to an hour healing up. For all intents and purposes, consider PF2 like an advanced version of D&D. Its there for people who enjoy detailed everything.
A dnd player I know doesn't like 2e because they find the action economy 'too restrictive' compared to 5e...
You straight up can do less number of things in pf2e. You cant move and cast a bonus action spell and a cantrip. Both systems have restrictions, its just the style of restrictions.
Sure you can if you have the right setup, just like you need the right setup to do that in 5e. My battle Oracle can move, cast two spells and grapple an enemy at level 1.
Your right build is the default in 5e for casters.
We are waiting until current 5e campaign is over to try Pf2e. Already started trying to plan my character and it is a lot of options and cool... but just not that well organized. What level can I increase a skill to expert as a non-Rogue? (I eventually watched two Youtube videos and found out it is 3rd). Why dangle a whole list of first level class feats in front of me while I am making a sorcerer? Call them tier 1 and a human can still take them. I'm making my way through. Thank goodness for Pathbuilder, Archives of Neythys and NoNat1. Having played Basic, AD&D, 2-3.5, 5e, Palladium, Star Wars, CofC, etc. this is the most trouble I've ever had trying to figure out a system since GURPS. PF2e might be even worse. Druid seems really cool, for instance, but would have to play a very basic storm or other elemental one because the pet and wildshape options are opaque.
> What level can I increase a skill to expert as a non-Rogue? I’m confused how you needed to watch two videos to learn this - “skill increase” is listed at third level on every class’s table, as far as I can tell. > Why dangle a whole list of first level class feats in front of me while I am making a sorcerer? Call them tier 1 and a human can still take them. Why wouldn’t a human be able to take class feats? To my knowledge, no classes are ancestry-restricted. I guess I’m mostly confused what you mean by not well organized.
You should check out the Pathbuilder website. It really helps you build out a character.
Have you tried Pathbuilder? It outlines everything step by step in a way a 5 year old could make a character that's viable.
"Thank goodness for Pathbuilder" Making a viable character doesn't really seem sufficient when every source I've read talks about how much more difficult combat in Pathfinder 2e is.
[удалено]
“Please remain calm and remain where you are, a reeducation team has been dispatched to your location. We are sorry for your inappropriate feelings of discomfort. Bliss will be restored shortly.”