What's pathfinder 2e like?

[Kurald Galain]

The solution as it was explained to me is that rolls are only required when there are consequences to failure and there is an element of chaos in the environment

Turns out that doesn't work so well in practice.

My problem with the extreme bonuses at high level and what must be correspondingly high DCs is that I want characters attempt stuff outside their fields of expertise.

Yes. The best way to work with "extreme" bonuses is set the DCs such that the rookies can succeed, not such that the experts can fail. It's really ok if experts succeed at their expertise; that's what they've built their character for (and note that almost no RPG, outside of 4E/5E, has an issue with this).

It helps to define a "challenge" as a complex situation that the PCs need to resolve somehow, not as a series of checks. For instance, "get your whole caravan across the river" is a challenge, whereas "make three swim checks" is not.

As Pex points out, there are two distinct playstyles here (i.e. "everything has a significant chance of failure" vs. "experts succeed at their expertise"). It is worth noting that 3E/P1 support both of these (one at low level, the other at higher level), whereas 5E/P2 only support the first one. Anyway, for a more extensive discussion on this topic, see the regular complaints about the skill system in the 5E forum.

[Rynjin]

Ah, here is where you are wrong, my good man.

For you see, there exist two separate concepts:
Depth
and
Complexity

Depth is a desirable trait. However you have to buy depth with complexity. None of it is actually implied. And having tons of complexity without gaining much depth from it is about the worst combination you can pull off.

This is a classic game design principle.
Here is a short video on the topic (guess who).

Between Hellpyre's thoughful analysis and Firechanter's analogy it is clear the designers failed terribly at the above design precept.

That's a matter of semantics, really. The video says everything I said but substitutes "complex" for "depth" and "complicated" for "complex".

"Complex" is a word that has almost always connoted desirability to me. Good food has complex flavors. Fine art and compositions often use complex artistic or musical techniques. But nobody ever says "this is complicated" as a compliment.

[martixy]

That's a matter of semantics, really. The video says everything I said but substitutes "complex" for "depth" and "complicated" for "complex".

"Complex" is a word that has almost always connoted desirability to me. Good food has complex flavors. Fine art and compositions often use complex artistic or musical techniques. But nobody ever says "this is complicated" as a compliment.

Ah. So now we have established common language and determined that we are in agreement. I do like the video's semantics better. Yours sound too similar. :)

[Rynjin]

Whatever you prefer. =)

[Morty]

The idea of choosing your abilities A la carte via feats-every-level is semi-modular - but that's sort of what I meant, they made a half-hearted stab at it then stuck with the class-based silos anyways just slightly broken up.

Yeah, it feels like PF2E sort of runs into the inherent limitations of the d20 system. Levels and classes inherently restrict any kind of modularity and PF1E only achieves any kind of variety by sheer volume that you need to sift through - it's a restrictive system by nature. 5E side-steps the problem by not trying to be varied or modular. PF2E does, but the tools it has are very ill-suited for the purpose.

[Crake]

The solution as it was explained to me is that rolls are only required when there are consequences to failure and there is an element of chaos in the environment, like an ongoing fight, in which scrubs can get lucky and experts can have routine tasks go wrong.

The issue with this logic is that there's always a consequence for failure: Time lost. Unless you literally have no time constraints beyond your slowly decaying mortal coil, there's always a consequence for failure, no matter what.

[CharonsHelper]

I hate to break it to you but there were retro clones for AD&D and basic D&D when 3e came out (heck there were retro clones for 1e AD&D when 2e and basic were being produced and they are not that much different). Also there were a lot of people that disliked 3e when it came out and never switched or switched later.

One thing that helped 3e though was that a lot of people were also tired of 2e because 2e was really similar to 1e and basic D&D which meant that they were playing the same game essentially as they were in teh 70's and at that time there were a lot of new RPGs that did things very differently and 2e was seen as an old system. When 3e came out it appeared as really different and so was able to bring in people that thought D&D was getting stale.

So while there were retro clones they did not have the same impact or support that PF did (remember too that no other retro clone had such a helping hand as the 3e SRD).

I realize that there were retro clones. I should have been clearer; I meant that none became a Pathfinder in it's popularity and actually overthrowing D&D's market dominance for an edition etc.

[NomGarret]

Yeah, it feels like PF2E sort of runs into the inherent limitations of the d20 system. Levels and classes inherently restrict any kind of modularity and PF1E only achieves any kind of variety by sheer volume that you need to sift through - it's a restrictive system by nature. 5E side-steps the problem by not trying to be varied or modular. PF2E does, but the tools it has are very ill-suited for the purpose.

P2 strikes me as a system that’s asking for bloat. That’s not necessarily bad. Being the active game that regularly cranks out new content in contrast to 5e’s deliberately lethargic release schedule is appealing.

[Kurald Galain]

P2 strikes me as a system that’s asking for bloat. That’s not necessarily bad.

That's assuming that Paizo is willing to print more interesting options than they have in the PHB. The playtest for the next splatbook isn't promising though (e.g. it has an investigator class that has to jump through hoops to get a whopping +1 non-stacking bonus...)

[The Glyphstone]

P2 strikes me as a system that’s asking for bloat. That’s not necessarily bad. Being the active game that regularly cranks out new content in contrast to 5e’s deliberately lethargic release schedule is appealing.

The bloat has to be meaningful, as well. A book that contains 50 new feats is a lot less exciting if those feats are actually five 1e feats broken up into 10 incremental level-based fractions apiece.

[Eldonauran]

I've been playing PF2 for a good bit now. I have to agree that it is its own system and has little resemblance to PF1. I like PF2 as a system but, if I was honest, I still prefer PF1 (without question). D&D 3.5 was a system that I grew to love and that continued with PF1. I like that while the GM has his Rule 0 to fall back on, both the player and GM have mechanics that limit them in one way or the other, yet an amazing amount of freedom with customization. PF2 feels a bit too "loose" in that area to me and the mechanics between classes seem too similar.

That's just my opinion, after all. What I will say for certain, is that there are things from PF2 that I love and will be bringing into PF1 as houserules. Namely, the hero point mechanics and three action system. PF1 Unchained has these rules for use, and with slight modification, they will blend in well. I'm also going to adapt cantrips to be useful, and scale, like in PF2.

[GrayDeath]

Preface: I have only rad PF and played a one shot.

But to me it seems that Paizo made the same mistake that was made when transitioning from 3rd DSA (The Dark Eye) to 4th, just not quite on the same magnitude.
They added a LOT extra options, piecemail and unnecessarily" complex interconnectedness, to achieve their goal of softening up the CLass differentiation...and failed doing so, as 2/3rds of the options at the least are either entirely useless, lock you on a tree direction, or are actually only sounding like they may help you and at best dont impede you at building your character.


Now I am the last person that would say that a PF 2 should only be an "optimized" PF 1 (as if I am honest, for longer Games I prefer non Class Systems and "better spread" rolling mechanics), but Paizo obvfiously had some cool Ideas, but "had" to shoehorn them into "seeming like a D0 Derivative from afar" out of oear of loosing too many customers.

As you might have guessed given the negative tone: I dont like it. At all.
For what it seems to be trying to do, there are many many of better Systems out there, and for "Keeping a D&Dish feel but freer" it falls flat rather completely.

[patchyman]

And then there's proficencies. Having all of your rolls scale with level while proficencies add a static bonus ends up ludicrous in terms of challenge design. An 8th level wizard with no investment into the thieving arts will outdo a 3rd level rogue at anything the rogue specialized in, and because all the numbers scale at the same rate, no challenge ever really feels different. If your GM throws a level appropriate challenge at a group, and then a few levels later throws the same challenge at them, even if they haven't done anything to improve their abilities in that arena it becomes much easier. If you throw a challenge under the expected DCs for a level, any proficienies in relevant areas trivialize it. And yet many proficiencies are locked to specific classes, and so you need to pick at CharGen what you want to be good at, and hope you picked right for your GM's style.

I’m a 5e player and DM, but I picked up the P2 Core book, read it and have started playing in a campaign (so far, we have finished one session).

For the way I DM, the proficiency system in P2 doesn’t work, for different reasons than Hellpyre gave.

While the party specializing into roles is both normal and desirable, when I DM, players cannot assume (for instance) that only the party Face will make social rolls. The half-elf bard may be charming, but the lord may want to speak to the fighter with the noble background, the dwarven blacksmith may only speak Dwarven, and druids may only share their secrets with other druids. The Face will still make 80% of social checks, but you can’t just assume a check will never come up for your character.

In P2, past low levels, an untrained character will essentially never succeed at those checks, and since the critical failure range is so large for untrained characters, the system actively discourages anyone but the specialist making a skill check. Certain classes and low Int characters also have too few skills to really participate in the skills minigame.

This is also a serious problem for smaller parties, where the party may not be able to cover all skills.

[Pugwampy]

I ma skipping PF 2e if its not backwards compatable .

[stack]

I’m a 5e player and DM, but I picked up the P2 Core book, read it and have started playing in a campaign (so far, we have finished one session).

For the way I DM, the proficiency system in P2 doesn’t work, for different reasons than Hellpyre gave.

While the party specializing into roles is both normal and desirable, when I DM, players cannot assume (for instance) that only the party Face will make social rolls. The half-elf bard may be charming, but the lord may want to speak to the fighter with the noble background, the dwarven blacksmith may only speak Dwarven, and druids may only share their secrets with other druids. The Face will still make 80% of social checks, but you can’t just assume a check will never come up for your character.

In P2, past low levels, an untrained character will essentially never succeed at those checks, and since the critical failure range is so large for untrained characters, the system actively discourages anyone but the specialist making a skill check. Certain classes and low Int characters also have too few skills to really participate in the skills minigame.

This is also a serious problem for smaller parties, where the party may not be able to cover all skills.

While this is different from 5e, it is not so different from 3/3.5/PF1, where characters that don't max skill ranks are often left out of making particular checks.

[Firechanter]

I ma skipping PF 2e if its not backwards compatable .

Well, it isn't.

PF2 feats, roughly speaking, are anywhere between 1/2 and 1/60 of a PF feat.
For instance, PF Improved Initiative gives +4 to Ini.
PF2 it's called Incredible Initiative and gives a +2.

PF Skill Focus gives a flat +3 to all checks with a skill, scaling to +6 beyond 10th level.
PF2 skill feats typically give something like a +1 in situational circumstances that may or may not apply for one check in ten. Or you have to pay a feat just to be allowed to do something that you can just _do_ in PF.

So long story short, there is absolutely no reason ever to use a PF2 resource in a PF game. And conversely, if you allow PF material in a PF2 game, no-one in their right mind will ever take a PF2 option.

BTW I also personally resent the Paizo devs for their ridiculous hyperbole. A 10% chance to move further up the Initiative order is not incredible. And applying the smallest mathematically possible bonus (+1) has nothing to do with "supreme confidence" when navigating the wilderness.

[stack]

...
BTW I also personally resent the Paizo devs for their ridiculous hyperbole. A 10% chance to move further up the Initiative order is not incredible. And applying the smallest mathematically possible bonus (+1) has nothing to do with "supreme confidence" when navigating the wilderness.

Hey now, I can be supremely confident in any number of things I know nothing about.

[Crake]

While this is different from 5e, it is not so different from 3/3.5/PF1, where characters that don't max skill ranks are often left out of making particular checks.

Not really. A lot of skills scale significantly faster than the DCs do, if the DCs scale at all. Most, if not all of the physical skills have static DCs, spellcraft and concentration both scale at 1/2 level. Aside from that, the rest are generally opposed checks, so it'll be against an enemy's check, which means sure, if the enemy has max ranks, you'll have a hard time against them if you're only say, half ranking, but it's not impossible, however, against an enemy with NO ranks, you'll be doing much better than someone with no ranks as well.

Pretty much all of my players always get at least 5 or so ranks in the physical skills for just that reason, it's really not the issue you think it is.

[Kurald Galain]

BTW I also personally resent the Paizo devs for their ridiculous hyperbole. A 10% chance to move further up the Initiative order is not incredible. And applying the smallest mathematically possible bonus (+1) has nothing to do with "supreme confidence" when navigating the wilderness.

I completely agree. The class descriptions are full of how you BECOME LEGENDARY!!!1! at anything from attack rolls to saving throws, which in all cases means "you get a +2 bonus".

"Legendary feats" in P2 (i.e. level 15+) include such utter marvels as

• getting a cryptic hint from a religious book
• earning more money when performing
• ignoring class/spell prerequisites when crafting
• making someone shaken for two rounds
• communicating with someone if you don't share a language

Whooo! Legendary!!! Incredible!!!!!

[Dr. Cliché]

I have to say, I'm very sad that PF2 changed the skill system because PF1 had my favourite skill system out of any D&D/PF game I've played.

[Crake]

[*]ignoring class/spell prerequisites when crafting

I like how this is a feat in 2e, when it's just something someone can do normally in 1e, though admittedly, in 3.5e it would be a big deal.

[HeraldOfExius]

Not really. A lot of skills scale significantly faster than the DCs do, if the DCs scale at all. Most, if not all of the physical skills have static DCs, spellcraft and concentration both scale at 1/2 level. Aside from that, the rest are generally opposed checks, so it'll be against an enemy's check, which means sure, if the enemy has max ranks, you'll have a hard time against them if you're only say, half ranking, but it's not impossible, however, against an enemy with NO ranks, you'll be doing much better than someone with no ranks as well.

Pretty much all of my players always get at least 5 or so ranks in the physical skills for just that reason, it's really not the issue you think it is.

If Starfinder and PF2 are anything to go on, Paizo seems to think that skills should be maxed out or not used at all. Why they continue to put scaling systems like this into their games when they obviously don't want the difficulty of anything to change over the course of all 20 levels is beyond me.

[Kurald Galain]

I like how this is a feat in 2e, when it's just something someone can do normally in 1e, though admittedly, in 3.5e it would be a big deal.

It may be a big deal, but is it LEGEDNARY?!?!!

[Firechanter]

I have to say, I'm very sad that PF2 changed the skill system because PF1 had my favourite skill system out of any D&D/PF game I've played.

The PF skill system does have it perks, yes. It's easy to get a reasonable skill bonus for skills that don't need that much attention. The consolidation is a decent effort. I also like that Skill Focus scales (rather abruptly however), and I like that Int items offer extra maxed-out skills. And that there are ways (mostly through traits) to expand your class skill list.

Of course it's not perfect. The consolidation is sometimes weird. Perception is the single most important skill in the game, bar none. And why haven't Climb, Jump and Swim been rolled into Athletics? Why is Jump part of Acrobatics? -- ofc everything can be houseruled, but that doesn't mean it's not wonky in the first place.

[patchyman]

While this is different from 5e, it is not so different from 3/3.5/PF1, where characters that don't max skill ranks are often left out of making particular checks.

I’m not a Pathfinder expert, but I believe there is a critical (groan!) difference between the systems.

In P1, at level 1, a barbarian is untrained at a skill and has an average attribute (total +0). If he chooses to attempt a DC 15 skill, he has a 5% chance to critically fail, 65% chance to fail and a 30% to succeed. In most circumstances, it is worthwhile for him to at least try.

In P2, same circumstances, the barbarian has a 20% chance to critically fail, 50% chance to fail and a 30% chance to succeed. In most circumstances, it is now worthwhile for him not to try to avoid making things worse.

[Psyren]

If Starfinder and PF2 are anything to go on, Paizo seems to think that skills should be maxed out or not used at all. Why they continue to put scaling systems like this into their games when they obviously don't want the difficulty of anything to change over the course of all 20 levels is beyond me.

Starfinder uses a mix of scaling and flat DCs just like P1 and 3.5 do. There are still instances where dabbling in a skill can yield positive results, but a party-based game rewarding specialization is understandable too.

And why haven't Climb, Jump and Swim been rolled into Athletics? Why is Jump part of Acrobatics? -- ofc everything can be houseruled, but that doesn't mean it's not wonky in the first place.

Starfinder actually did this - we may roll it back to PF1 in our next campaign as it feels like a positive change and is also a softer landing for the folks who are coming over from 5e.

[Morty]

P2 strikes me as a system that’s asking for bloat. That’s not necessarily bad. Being the active game that regularly cranks out new content in contrast to 5e’s deliberately lethargic release schedule is appealing.

Being an active game that's releasing new content doesn't necessitate being so restrictive that you need new content. Keeping the supplement treadmill to a minimum is a lesson 5E has learned from 3E and 4E quite well, to give credit where it's due.

[stack]

I’m not a Pathfinder expert, but I believe there is a critical (groan!) difference between the systems.

In P1, at level 1, a barbarian is untrained at a skill and has an average attribute (total +0). If he chooses to attempt a DC 15 skill, he has a 5% chance to critically fail, 65% chance to fail and a 30% to succeed. In most circumstances, it is worthwhile for him to at least try.

In P2, same circumstances, the barbarian has a 20% chance to critically fail, 50% chance to fail and a 30% chance to succeed. In most circumstances, it is now worthwhile for him not to try to avoid making things worse.

My point was more that in 5e, the difference between trained and untrained is a +6 bonus at level 20 (barring expertise via rogue, feat, etc.), verses +20 skill ranks and a possible +3 class skill (PF1) and +22 trained (PF2). How DCs are set and the prevalence of critical failures are of course relevant to the overall discussion, but beyond the basic point I was making. In my play experience in PF1, non-face characters tend not to bother with social checks (maybe aiding another), untrained characters can't even attempt knowledge skills with DC above 10, etc.

The ease of adding additional trained skills is also relevant. In PF2, you get 9 skill increases (or 19, if a rogue, plus you can get more via feats and boosting tertiary or quaternary stats is unavoidable, so the cost of +2 INT as you level for an additional trained skill is low). While you will often be using the skill boosts to boost proficiency level on key skills, you have the option to have a lot of trained skills (going from +0 to +(level+2)).

[HeraldOfExius]

Starfinder uses a mix of scaling and flat DCs just like P1 and 3.5 do. There are still instances where dabbling in a skill can yield positive results, but a party-based game rewarding specialization is understandable too.

The DCs in PF1 that scaled which I can remember off the top of my head are any opposed checks (scales with opponents' bonuses), knowledge about creatures (scales with CR), spellcraft and some UMD (scales with spell/caster level), acrobatics (scales with opponents' CMD or how far/high you want to jump). The scaling is almost always a result of taking on stronger opponents. The spellcraft and UMD scaling is probably the closest to Starfinder's ship DC scaling in that it pertains to using better stuff (to take on stronger opponents), but even then it doesn't make using things you already had harder just because you upgraded something else (as is the case with Starfinder ships). Some characters just want to have a +10 bonus to UMD to take 10 with wands outside of combat, not a +30 to reliably use 9th level scrolls in combat.

[Psyren]

The DCs in PF1 that scaled which I can remember off the top of my head are any opposed checks (scales with opponents' bonuses), knowledge about creatures (scales with CR), spellcraft and some UMD (scales with spell/caster level), acrobatics (scales with opponents' CMD or how far/high you want to jump). The scaling is almost always a result of taking on stronger opponents. The spellcraft and UMD scaling is probably the closest to Starfinder's ship DC scaling in that it pertains to using better stuff (to take on stronger opponents), but even then it doesn't make using things you already had harder just because you upgraded something else (as is the case with Starfinder ships). Some characters just want to have a +10 bonus to UMD to take 10 with wands outside of combat, not a +30 to reliably use 9th level scrolls in combat.

Yeah, I know all this but there are still static DCs too. Movement-related skills like Ride, Fly, Climb and Swim all have static DCs use cases for example - you can drop a few points in each and then use items, traits, and/or taking 10 to make these checks. A few points in Knowledge let you at least roll trained checks - creature DCs may scale, but other topics tend to be flat, if you have extra points and either want to cover a gap or be a backup. In short, there are plenty of skills you don't have to max out.

As for Starfinder, it's consolidated down from 35 skills in PF1 to 20; this was itself a consolidation from 3.5's 40+.