Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[kayman]

You failed.

So tell me how other editions better support the narrative of the game?

 

[BryonD]

So tell me how other editions better support the narrative of the game?

If you want to continue a dialog then you need to go back and read the questions I actually asked and try to answer them from an honest perspective. If you will not or are incapable, then there is no value in continuation.

Because, so far, you keep moving the goal posts and reframing the question so that only your point of view counts. That is a dead end.

 

[kayman]

If you want to continue a dialog then you need to go back and read the questions I actually asked and try to answer them from an honest perspective. If you will not or are incapable, then there is no value in continuation.

Because, so far, you keep moving the goal posts and reframing the question so that only your point of view counts. That is a dead end.

"Being able to describe differences on top of the same math is not at all the same as having math that looks at the narrative elements of the set pieces and uses a reasonably consistent system to determine what that math should be. And if balance gets lost in telling the story well, then so be it. The first, second, third, and fourth most important things in an RPG experience, to me, is being that character in that world. "

I will try but understand that english is not my native language.

 

[BryonD]

I will try but understand that english is not my native language.

Understood and I'm happy to work with you there.

But please understand, I know what I like. I've been gaming a long time. You said something about being 39. Let's just say I've got that beat. I don't see that as a contest of who has the most credit or an appeal to authority. I'm just saying neither of us woke up this morning, went to a random website and starting sharing our wisdom at random.

I really know what I like and I know with zero reservation that PF2E doesn't even try to deliver to my priorities in a gaming system. My position on that is not a threat or aggression against your position.

PF2E is fatally flawed for me. You can come to understand that. Or obviously, you can choose to not give a flip what I think. I completely respect that option.

But if we want to have a conversation it has to come from a place where you are accepting that my opinion is real and valid.
I've been down this road before and I've encountered people who could never get past that my dislike for a system could be an honest opinion but instead assigned all kinds of false motives or claims to me. And this conversation, so far, has followed the early steps of that path. I just don't care enough to want to go there again. But I do enjoy discussing the differences.

 

[Xenonnonex]

Pathfinder 2e is the climax of ttrpg. Thanks Paizo.

For me, the climax of RPG... The perfect system. Thanks Paizo.

Are you a bot working for Paizo?

 

[kayman]

Are you a bot working for Paizo?

No i am just a gamer from Brasil who loves Pathfinde 2e.

 

[BrokenTwin]

I would be fine with the level-as-bonus-to-everything concept if it was, like, 1/2 or 1/4 of your level that was added. As it stands, it mostly just seems to massively shrink the usability range of monsters. Which I understand is a stylistic choice, it's just not one I'm interested in.

 

[Melfast]

I would be fine with the level-as-bonus-to-everything concept if it was, like, 1/2 or 1/4 of your level that was added. As it stands, it mostly just seems to massively shrink the usability range of monsters. Which I understand is a stylistic choice, it's just not one I'm interested in.

We've played a fair amount of PF2, now. Our GM was initially concerned about the impact of +level, but it has worked out fine. Creatures up to 4 levels above or below party level are effective in encounters and relatively easy to balance to the party. While creatures more than 4 levels below the party level are little threat, that is not that different than in 5e.

 

[Argyle King]

And I am in the opposite camp. Bounded Accuracy is a huge turn-off as it implies there's a limit to the stuff you can do, and that limit is typically very low. As Rodney Thompson said, that means that to be more of a threat, monster just have to have more hit points, which for me is a huge negative.

Given the choice between a tough PF2 monster, where you rarely hit him unless you think up clever ways to do so, and the tough 5E monster, which is pretty much as easy to hit as anything else, but just requires you to grind away more hits, I'd definitely go with PF2.

PF2 models Bard shooting Smaug and countless similar legendary encounters. In 5E Bard needs to keep shooting arrows for a while, doing about as well as 2-3 generic archers could do as Smaug gets slowly whittled down. To me that is double-plus-unfun. If you want bounded accuracy, just play 5E. PF2 is for those of us who find bounded accuracy unrealistic (not a huge issue), not in genre (somewhat of an issue) and boring (a big issue).

I like bounded accuracy, but my mental picture of what that means is very different than how the phrase seems to be used in the context of D&D.

I'd rather have horizontal growth and breadth of play than an endless treadmill of number stacking.

 

[BrokenTwin]

We've played a fair amount of PF2, now. Our GM was initially concerned about the impact of +level, but it has worked out fine. Creatures up to 4 levels above or below party level are effective in encounters and relatively easy to balance to the party. While creatures more than 4 levels below the party level are little threat, that is not that different than in 5e.

That's good to hear. I'll probably never run PF2, but if my local group wants to play it, I'll roll up a character. Thankfully that's all posted for free online, though it's painfully difficult to build a character using the SRD when you're new to the system. Good way to get a bit of a feel for the game though.