Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[Philip Benz]

Guys, ad hominem attacks are just sad, and reflect more on the author than on the target.

BryonD, yes, of course there was a huge menu of character creation options in PF1, from traits, to feats to racial abilities. If you prefer that bewildering panoply of options, great. I like the way those types of options have been reorganized in PF2, and even with just the core rulebook there is a lot of space for variations and individual choices. With each book Paizo puts out, we get more and more such options. New backgrounds, new racial options, new class options and so on. Such is the nature of any RPG's publishing cycle, and PF2 hasn't even reached the 6-month mark.

You remark that these options in PF2 are not numerically distinct enough. I would argue that it's for the best. When some background option is just too good to pass up, you start to see games where every arcane spellcaster grew up in Wayang, which just doesn't feel right.

Again, I just don't see the point of opining about which game system is "best". I've tried to point out a couple aspects I find interesting in PF2, even though I spent some eight years or so playing PF1 and have played many other RPGs since getting addicted in '74.

I've noticed a few shortcomings with PF2. Familiars and animal companions (and the minion system in general) just don't feel right, for example. I understand the gameplay logic behind this move, but it just feels clunky to me. I get that we're writing in a thread entitled "Rate Pathfinder 2e", but still.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Arrogance is a terrible flaw.

The inability to hold a civil debate does not reflect well on those who resort to insults. This really is a terrible flaw.

 

[kayman]

OK…. Let's answer those who criticize a system but apparently have not tested it empirically.
You claim that the mechanics of PF2 disrupt the narrative of the game. I think just the opposite.
Let's justify this position with three points.

1 - PF2 has managed to make each character class distinct in its abilities (with a wide spectrum of options within its own class) while preventing certain classes from becoming completely dominant over the course of levels. This means that the mechanics allowed the game to be balanced without making all classes equal. By itself, this new feature facilitates the narrative for the game master and allows each class to develop their potential.

2 - The action economy has ensured that all Pcs and Npcs have a huge variety of options during the turn while eliminating the endless nomenclatures for different types of actions that hinder the game's progress and narrative (move, standart, full, swift, immediative, etc)

3 - Spells, This may have been the most significant and important change to the game's progress and therefore the narrative. Unlike PF1 now spellcaster must worry and think in detail about its actions, as the aura of invulnerability no longer exists. He remains powerful but not invincible.

Now, how can anyone criticize a system without even having tried it?

I say this having played 13 sessions (5 hours each) of Age of Ashes to date and once again i feel confortable to claim that the game's narrative has been greatly facilitated by the new mechanics without making the game dull and equal.


I apologize for the insult ... And sorry for my bad english.

 

[generic]

OK…. Let's answer those who criticize a system but apparently have not tested it empirically.
You claim that the mechanics of PF2 disrupt the narrative of the game. I think just the opposite.
Let's justify this position with three points.

1 - PF2 has managed to make each character class distinct in its abilities (with a wide spectrum of options within its own class) while preventing certain classes from becoming completely dominant over the course of levels. This means that the mechanics allowed the game to be balanced without making all classes equal. By itself, this new feature facilitates the narrative for the game master and allows each class to develop their potential.

2 - The action economy has ensured that all Pcs and Npcs have a huge variety of options during the turn while eliminating the endless nomenclatures for different types of actions that hinder the game's progress and narrative (move, standart, full, swift, immediative, etc)

3 - Spells, This may have been the most significant and important change to the game's progress and therefore the narrative. Unlike PF1 now spellcaster must worry and think in detail about its actions, as the aura of invulnerability no longer exists. He remains powerful but not invincible.

Now, how can anyone criticize a system without even having tried it?

I say this having played 13 sessions (5 hours each) of Age of Ashes to date and once again i feel confortable to claim that the game's narrative has been greatly facilitated by the new mechanics without making the game dull and equal.


I apologize for the insult ... And sorry for my bad english.

Might want to mention BryonD in your post so that he sees it.

 

[BryonD]

Now, how can anyone criticize a system without even having tried it?

Well, obviously I have presented critical comments which you, as a major supporter, remain incapable of responding to and continue to attempt to change the subject away from.

I've played many many games over the years. I know what I like and what I don't. I've been critical of games before that didn't work for me as I've had supporters proclaim that certainly my position must come from lack of adequate understanding. This always follows their failure to address the actual complaints.

I think it is fair to say that as long as you continue to evade my complaints, that they stand as valid and my capacity for providing valid critical comments is validated.
But.... I'll respond to your posts. But if you do not include a strong response to my prior comments in any reply, I'll take that as simply a default on your part. I'm happy to play this game, but if you can't carry your end, then the game is no fun.

You claim that the mechanics of PF2 disrupt the narrative of the game. I think just the opposite.
Let's justify this position with three points.

To be clear, I think that PF2E does a decidedly inferior job of promoting the narrative. I already noted that PLAYERS bring story to the game and no system can "disrupt" that. The question is: what mechanical system does best to enhance the experience?

1 - PF2 has managed to make each character class distinct in its abilities (with a wide spectrum of options within its own class) while preventing certain classes from becoming completely dominant over the course of levels. This means that the mechanics allowed the game to be balanced without making all classes equal. By itself, this new feature facilitates the narrative for the game master and allows each class to develop their potential.

I don't accept that PF2E does any particularly great job of creating diverse characters. Having a sword and board fighter play differently than a fireball flinging mage is a very low bar to set.

PF2E does establish balance. It demands and mandates mathematical balance. I find this obligation of math to be at the root of its failure.

2 - The action economy has ensured that all Pcs and Npcs have a huge variety of options during the turn while eliminating the endless nomenclatures for different types of actions that hinder the game's progress and narrative (move, standart, full, swift, immediative, etc)

I like the 3AE. I use it as previously published for PF1E. It has no bearing on the math vs narrative issue.

3 - Spells, This may have been the most significant and important change to the game's progress and therefore the narrative. Unlike PF1 now spellcaster must worry and think in detail about its actions, as the aura of invulnerability no longer exists. He remains powerful but not invincible.

Noted. I am quite happy with the PF1E system. And you have really said anything here beyond generic fawning.


So, in summary, you like PF2E "because". Ok.

IN PF2E the math is dominant over the narrative elements in determining how the mechanical presentation of everything is expressed. The 3X core is based on the basic D20 and has a foundational assumption that someone who is optimized at something scales along a +level path with other modifiers included in that. So any martial character attacking with a weapon of choice, roguish character doing stealthy or similar tasks, or a scholarly character making a knowledge check all end up somewhat comparable to the 2E result. But a character outside of their wheelhouse can be massively off this mark. And there can be major "lack of balance" when two things which, when considered from a purely narrative evaluation are not at all balance are placed alongside each other. I call this “getting the narrative right”.
PF1E says what are you: A sword fighter? Ok, then you must be at optimal bonus to attack, plus an extra bonus (focus feat) when using your sword of choice, plus some bonus for your STR, probably a magic weapon. Maybe some other things.

PF2E says: what level are you? OK in order to be “balanced” the number we allow must be pretty close to X. Now, once we have that locked in we can look at you and add some small tweaks to allow for narrative reflection. You get your STR, you can have EXPERT as a small bonus. But you are not permitted to go outside a tight boundary away from that “what level are you” baseline. Because, heaven forbid, your sword fighter might become “completely dominant” at sword fighting “over the course of levels”. And clearly PF2E doesn’t want that natural narrative outcome to raise its against that math head and muddle with our balance first approach.

In the stories the sword fighter should be “completely dominant” at sword fighting and balance at this thing doesn’t care in the least about getting the story right.

I get and fully accept that you don’t care about this and this balance is a boon to you. I am not claiming that there is any flaw in being a fan of PF2E. But you are rejecting the notion that I understand the game or can claim that there are narrative flaws in the mechanics. It may be that your concern about “narrative purity” makes zero recognition of this and you think I’m being absurd in my obsession on getting these details right. I am guilty. I demand that any game I play make a strong effort at getting those details right and I have the luxury of playing games which achieve this. So I have the luxury of rejecting games which reject my priorities.

The eleventh hour change to removing +level from untrained was a HUGE step in the right direction. But overall the game still focuses on the “balance” to the defeat of narrative.

You don’t have to agree. But when I see a character just written up I already feel like it is a three year old crayon scratching when I could have a oil on canvas masterpiece. I don’t need to do a lot of playing to know that seeing the sloppy crayons will detract from my pleasure.

 

[BryonD]

If you prefer that bewildering panoply of options, great.

I do like a huge number of options. But hopefully my post above sheds some light on the point. The PF1E core alone up against PF2E with a stack of yet to be released expansions would still be an overwhelming victory for PF1E.

 

[BryonD]

When some background option is just too good to pass up, you start to see games where every arcane spellcaster grew up in Wayang, which just doesn't feel right.

As a completely separate point I have two replies to this.

First, if you have good players who want a good story, this simply is not an issue. I think you can see that if narrative is important, then turning around and using a strong narrative based system and then choosing to make anti-narrative choices with it completely defeats the point.

Second, I've long agreed that 3X has no training wheels. It will LET YOU crash and burn your game with bad choices. So far I have yet to find a game that doesn't give the players the liberty to undermine their own fun without limiting what the mechanics can achieve in the process. 5E is probably the closest effort to date. Maybe the future will get us there. But for now, this is why I still choose PF1E over 5E. Two great games, PF1E gives me more freedom to crash and provides more reward when I don't.

 

[kayman]

Well, obviously I have presented critical comments which you, as a major supporter, remain incapable of responding to and continue to attempt to change the subject away from.

I've played many many games over the years. I know what I like and what I don't. I've been critical of games before that didn't work for me as I've had supporters proclaim that certainly my position must come from lack of adequate understanding. This always follows their failure to address the actual complaints.

I think it is fair to say that as long as you continue to evade my complaints, that they stand as valid and my capacity for providing valid critical comments is validated.
But.... I'll respond to your posts. But if you do not include a strong response to my prior comments in any reply, I'll take that as simply a default on your part. I'm happy to play this game, but if you can't carry your end, then the game is no fun.

To be clear, I think that PF2E does a decidedly inferior job of promoting the narrative. I already noted that PLAYERS bring story to the game and no system can "disrupt" that. The question is: what mechanical system does best to enhance the experience?


I don't accept that PF2E does any particularly great job of creating diverse characters. Having a sword and board fighter play differently than a fireball flinging mage is a very low bar to set.

PF2E does establish balance. It demands and mandates mathematical balance. I find this obligation of math to be at the root of its failure.

I like the 3AE. I use it as previously published for PF1E. It has no bearing on the math vs narrative issue.

Noted. I am quite happy with the PF1E system. And you have really said anything here beyond generic fawning.


So, in summary, you like PF2E "because". Ok.

IN PF2E the math is dominant over the narrative elements in determining how the mechanical presentation of everything is expressed. The 3X core is based on the basic D20 and has a foundational assumption that someone who is optimized at something scales along a +level path with other modifiers included in that. So any martial character attacking with a weapon of choice, roguish character doing stealthy or similar tasks, or a scholarly character making a knowledge check all end up somewhat comparable to the 2E result. But a character outside of their wheelhouse can be massively off this mark. And there can be major "lack of balance" when two things which, when considered from a purely narrative evaluation are not at all balance are placed alongside each other. I call this “getting the narrative right”.
PF1E says what are you: A sword fighter? Ok, then you must be at optimal bonus to attack, plus an extra bonus (focus feat) when using your sword of choice, plus some bonus for your STR, probably a magic weapon. Maybe some other things.

PF2E says: what level are you? OK in order to be “balanced” the number we allow must be pretty close to X. Now, once we have that locked in we can look at you and add some small tweaks to allow for narrative reflection. You get your STR, you can have EXPERT as a small bonus. But you are not permitted to go outside a tight boundary away from that “what level are you” baseline. Because, heaven forbid, your sword fighter might become “completely dominant” at sword fighting “over the course of levels”. And clearly PF2E doesn’t want that natural narrative outcome to raise its against that math head and muddle with our balance first approach.

In the stories the sword fighter should be “completely dominant” at sword fighting and balance at this thing doesn’t care in the least about getting the story right.

I get and fully accept that you don’t care about this and this balance is a boon to you. I am not claiming that there is any flaw in being a fan of PF2E. But you are rejecting the notion that I understand the game or can claim that there are narrative flaws in the mechanics. It may be that your concern about “narrative purity” makes zero recognition of this and you think I’m being absurd in my obsession on getting these details right. I am guilty. I demand that any game I play make a strong effort at getting those details right and I have the luxury of playing games which achieve this. So I have the luxury of rejecting games which reject my priorities.

The eleventh hour change to removing +level from untrained was a HUGE step in the right direction. But overall the game still focuses on the “balance” to the defeat of narrative.

You don’t have to agree. But when I see a character just written up I already feel like it is a three year old crayon scratching when I could have a oil on canvas masterpiece. I don’t need to do a lot of playing to know that seeing the sloppy crayons will detract from my pleasure.

"PF2E does establish balance. It demands and mandates mathematical balance. I find this obligation of math to be at the root of its failure."

You are confusing things, balanced on the principle that each class has its qualities and flaws, but never balanced for any situation in the game. A warrior will be totally dominant over a wizard depending on the situation and vice versa. Something completely impossible in PF1, the wizard (cleric, druid, etc ..) will always be superior in ALL game situations from the 8th or 9th level onwards.



"PF2E says: what level are you? OK in order to be “balanced” the number we allow must be pretty close to X....."

At this point you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the PF2 system (which highlights my point that you can only criticize something from empirical experience). The fighter in PF2 is DOMINANT in his ability with the sword as he passes levels, even in relation to other martial classes. The difference is that now (correctly in my opinion) each class becomes DOMINANT in what it purports to be.



"But a character outside of their wheelhouse can be massively off this mark. And there can be major "lack of balance" when two things which, when considered from a purely narrative evaluation are not at all balance are placed alongside each other. I call this “getting the narrative right”."

Again you prove my point that empirical experience is needed. Due to the math of PF2, any class that is "outside of their wheelhouse" will have an infinitely greater disadvantage (exactly because of the mechanics you don't accept: untrained, trained, expert, master and legendary). Again I repeat, the game offers distinct potential for each class and never in its mechanics proposes to make them equal.


One more thing, I played PF1 to exhaustion, had wonderful experiences, and was a supporter of the system. But it is not coherent to deny the immense flaws it presented (such as total dominance in all game situations for the magic classes). In my humble opinion PF2 solved this serious problem without misrepresenting the essence of Pathfinder.

 

[BryonD]

At this point you demonstrate a complete lack of knowledge of the PF2 system (which highlights my point that you can only criticize something from empirical experience). The fighter in PF2 is DOMINANT in his ability with the sword as he passes levels, even in relation to other martial classes. The difference is that now (correctly in my opinion) each class becomes DOMINANT in what it purports to be.

You are wrong and your continued refusal to back up your claims shows it.

I know what I'm talking about and the math is there.
Simply proclaiming it to not be does nothing.

And it was your words that praised PF2 for removing the dominance.

One more thing, I played PF1 to exhaustion, had wonderful experiences, and was a supporter of the system. But it is not coherent to deny the immense flaws it presented (such as total dominance in all game situations for the magic classes). In my humble opinion PF2 solved this serious problem without misrepresenting the essence of Pathfinder.

Where have I denied any flaws in PF1?
This is incredibly ironic since you praise PF2E for removing dominance and then turn around and deny that it has a problem with removing dominance.

PF1 has flaws and I'd very much like to see a modern game that improves on it while still being dedicated to getting the narrative right.
For PF2 the examples I gave are extreme, but it shows immediately when even as L2 wizard has a +2 bonus to AC for no narrative justification beyond a hand wave that "everything 2nd level is better at getting out of the way"

Again, I completely accept that PF2E hits the spot for you (at least so far). But simply stating your opinion isn't worth anything.

You say I'm not coherent. But you fail to demonstrate that while offering a fully incoherent self contradiction.
Which just reproves the point I'd already reached. This conversation will not be a two way street and everything from you is trapped in a requirement to deny the concept of what my priorities are. Which will do nothing to improve the overall market acceptance of PF2E.

 

[kayman]

And it was your words that praised PF2 for removing the dominance.

Removing the dominance that spellcarsters had in ANY situation.

Ok , i think there is nothing left to talk about. You won.

I must prepare for Thursday, because "TOMORROW MUST BURN".