What's pathfinder 2e like?

[Pufferwockey]

I remember way back in the day sometimes pathfinder was referred to as dnd 3.75. When my group made und switch from 3.5 to pathfinder we unanimously agreed it was an improvement and (its been more than 10 years bear with my hazy memory) if I'm remembering correctly it was compatible with 3.5 supplimentary material with little or no tweaking.

Now years later in with a different group that plays 5e. I'm wondering how pathfinder 2e compares to that system. Would making the switch be similarly painless? I'm hoping for an insight before i shell out any money to look behind the paywall.

[Hellpyre]

PF2e is nowhere near as close to 5e as PF1e was to 3.5e. The systems for PF2e are a lot more independent, rather than being a straight rip for most mechanics like PF1e was. It may or may not be something you enjoy, but it will be a much harder transition than 3.5->PF was.

[Crake]

PF2e is nowhere near as close to 5e as PF1e was to 3.5e. The systems for PF2e are a lot more independent, rather than being a straight rip for most mechanics like PF1e was. It may or may not be something you enjoy, but it will be a much harder transition than 3.5->PF was.

"Nowhere near as close" is an understatement, they're completely different systems that share almost nothing in common.

[Pufferwockey]

PF2e is nowhere near as close to 5e as PF1e was to 3.5e. The systems for PF2e are a lot more independent, rather than being a straight rip for most mechanics like PF1e was. It may or may not be something you enjoy, but it will be a much harder transition than 3.5->PF was.

Cool thanks. How does it compare to PF1e then? More/less crunchy? Love given to both magic and non magic classes? How are character options? Is it close enough to PF1e/3.5 to use supplementary material from them like prestige classes etc?

[Hellpyre]

Pathfinder 2e as a system is totally incompatible with PF 1e material. They really are utterly different games.

[Hellpyre]

Cool thanks. How does it compare to PF1e then? More/less crunchy? Love given to both magic and non magic classes? How are character options? Is it close enough to PF1e/3.5 to use supplementary material from them like prestige classes etc?

I'm going to try and go a bit more indepth answering here, so be forewarned: ahead be blocks of text. Surrender hope, all ye who read here.

First off - I am not a fan of how PF2e has turned out so far. My judgement is certainly going to be colored by that, so hopefully someone who has embraced the system will also give an impression of it. That said:

Pathfinder 2e has got a lot of mechanical ideas that sound fantastic, like they would work out to an engaging experience - but the actual implementation of those ideas tend to take all their potential and hang it in a bathroom stall, so to speak. A lot of players moved on to PF1e instead of D&D 4e because they liked the fiddly bits of 3.5 and wanted more of that experience. PF2e has fiddly bits in spades, but...basically none of them feel like it mattered that you took it.

Take class advancement - most of your abilities come in the form of mix-and-match class feats. However, those feats mostly sort out into long trees, so the mix-and-match factor sort of just evaporates. You look at the system and it seems to promise that you can pick the appealing things at each level, but in reality you either stick with the thing you picked way earlier or else get, say, an ability that is deaigned to be good for level 5 as your level 15 ability. It works out to be less customizable than archetypes already were for most actual use cases I encountered when I ran it for a bit.

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.

And then there is the action system. It really is an elegant thing, with just the right levers in place for controlling action economy the keep the game challenging but fair. And then you see what constitutes some of the actions, and you start to wonder why the cleric gets to scale the potency of their abilities by using more actions, while the fighter or paladin gets hit with an action tax to use a shield while fighting. You only get one reaction, unless suddenly you don't, unless something else says nevermind, you can't use that extra reaction here.

Overall, it feels like Paizo wanted to explain to people that they were having badwrongfun by trying to branch a class out of its assigned niche, and boy does it feel like someone at the game just told me that I shouldn't want to play a character that way. By which I mean, it feels like I don't want to stay at a PF2e table.

TLDR: I really don't hate the system, but I think it isn't enjoyable as is. So I wouldn't use my game-playing time to do something that is a solid "meh".

[Pufferwockey]

Well as long as i liked the available feat trees i don'tthink I'd like them any less than the class subclass system in 5e, because they sound like they're effectively just the class subclass system in practice. If my precious rangers get a fair shakeI'd still lean towards making the switch.

That proficiency thing sounds like one heckuva bugbear though, and if I'm reading you correctly non magic combat types get a rotten deal on the turn economy on top of not getting magic which sounds pretty awful too. I'll make sure to take an in depth look before trying to talk the table in to learning a new system.

Thanks for taking the time for the in depth answer.

[Pex]

For those transitioning from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2 a potential reason to dislike it for those who dislike it is you have to pay for things you used to get for free. In Pathfinder getting a level in a class or being a particular race just means poof now you can do something. In Pathfinder 2 you have to choose to select it by paying a feat. You get feats every level but depending on level can only use the feat for particular things. One level is for a class ability while another level is for skill use. Racial abilities are nerf hit hard with this. You do not get everything a race had in the beginning. You have to spend a feat at a later level for what you used to get at character creation.

I think I understand why they did it this way. The whole of character creation and leveling is the archetype system to be as customizable as possible. I haven't played it to give an informed opinion on how well it works, but I can say it makes the game quite complex. 5E probably spoiled customers in its simplicity of creating a character and leveling. You have choices, but they're limited. Pathfinder 2 makes Pathfinder 1 character creation look like a first grade reader. Complexity is not inherently a bad thing, but tastes will vary.

[Anonymouswizard]

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.

This is one of the reasons I've not actually bought Pathfinder 2e, despite finding SF a big improvement over PF1E. The way Skills work just turns me off, it's just a multi-level version of 4e's skill system. I've yet to see a system make Proficienies more attractive to me than Skill Ranks, and I just don't like generic 'level bonus to everything' systems.

Sometimes I feel like wanting your character to be bad at something is a minority opinion, but just as I don't create a Wizard to have a high 'hot things with swords' skill (most of the time, in point but systems I tend to gosh instead of going pure scholar), but if I do create a knight I don't want a lot of knowledge about magic due to being high level (knowledge of heraldry is more this character's thing).

[gkathellar]

Sometimes I feel like wanting your character to be bad at something is a minority opinion, but just as I don't create a Wizard to have a high 'hot things with swords' skill (most of the time, in point but systems I tend to gosh instead of going pure scholar), but if I do create a knight I don't want a lot of knowledge about magic due to being high level (knowledge of heraldry is more this character's thing).

That's not how the proficiency system works, it's worth noting. Unlike 4E, you don't get +Level to skills unless you're proficient in them. So your hypothetical knight would only have a lot of knowledge of magic if they'd specifically trained in the Arcana skill.

[Pugwampy]

Wow unbelievable . The whole reason for PF coming into existence was because 4e was incompatible to 3.5 . Now PAIZO are doing the same thing ?

[CharonsHelper]

Wow unbelievable . The whole reason for PF coming into existence was because 4e was incompatible to 3.5 . Now PAIZO are doing the same thing ?

Not really. PF came into existence because so many people didn't like 4e and were much happier to keep playing a (mostly) improved version of 3.5 via Pathfinder.

If 4e had been generally liked, PF wouldn't have taken off how it did.

Obvious example: There was no Pathfinder equivalent of 2e at the time, because most D&D gamers liked 3rd edition when it came out.

[Hellpyre]

That's not how the proficiency system works, it's worth noting. Unlike 4E, you don't get +Level to skills unless you're proficient in them. So your hypothetical knight would only have a lot of knowledge of magic if they'd specifically trained in the Arcana skill.

Did they errata that, or is my copy of the 2e CRB misprinted? Mine states that all proficiencies get +level, but I looked at Nethys and saw it as you described, which I certainly perfer.

[NomGarret]

That's not how the proficiency system works, it's worth noting. Unlike 4E, you don't get +Level to skills unless you're proficient in them. So your hypothetical knight would only have a lot of knowledge of magic if they'd specifically trained in the Arcana skill.

OTOH it does advance at twice the pace of 4e, so your barbarian won’t recognize fire runes, unless he’s trained, at which point he’ll eclipse the knowledge of a random academy student even faster than in 4e.

On a sales pitch level, there’s plenty to like about P2, but it’s when you dig deeper that it gets muddy. The action economy is simple, sure. I’ve had plenty of times where players have had trouble (often conveniently) remembering what kind of actions their abilities used. So the idea of getting three actions you can mix and match however you like is appealing. The trick is that each of those abilities should occasionally be a better choice than “hit it again.” It’s usually not.

The other key choice is breaking everything down to feats. Whereas in P1 you were swapping things out with archetypes and alternate racial abilities, P2 just gives you pools of feats and lets you pick. On first glance, you see a ton of feats, but when you start building things back up, you see how many it takes to get back to the competencies you would get in P1. A certain amount of this is fine, as removing chaff abilities that don’t fit a concept is fine. Does P2 go too far, though?

Part of the feat problem is the sheer number of prerequisites. So many of these are feat trees and everything is level-gated. If the math of the game actually requires that degree of level-gating, I can’t see it. To me it looks like the designers are very concerned I might accidentally make an interesting character that doesn’t match their build ideas. Personally, I think you can cut in half all level requirements before say, 16, and the game would run just fine.

[Remuko]

Did they errata that, or is my copy of the 2e CRB misprinted? Mine states that all proficiencies get +level, but I looked at Nethys and saw it as you described, which I certainly perfer.

I dont see the disagreement? They said you dont get the + level bonus unless you are proficient. You say the book says "all proficiencies get +level" which means non-proficiencies dont get +level, which is exactly what they said?

[gkathellar]

I dont see the disagreement? They said you dont get the + level bonus unless you are proficient. You say the book says "all proficiencies get +level" which means non-proficiencies dont get +level, which is exactly what they said?

Exactly so. What makes it a little confusing is that untrained skills are the only non-proficient stat that's likely to end up on a character sheet (since most characters will only use weapons and armor they're proficient in). For every other stat you're ever going to refer to, you'll be getting (Level)+2+Modifier+Misc at a minimum. Only untrained skills are ever going to be rolled with Modifier+Misc.

I will say, it's understandable for people to miss this. Proficiency is presented really sloppily - the equation should really be a cutout in bold somewhere, considering how important it is. Instead it's explained in natural language in the second half of an unmarked paragraph on page 10. If you're skimming, you might miss it entirely.

[torrasque666]

Did they errata that, or is my copy of the 2e CRB misprinted? Mine states that all proficiencies get +level, but I looked at Nethys and saw it as you described, which I certainly perfer.

Page 10 dude.

If you’re untrained at a statistic, your proficiency bonus is +0—you must rely solely on the raw potential of your ability modifier. If your proficiency rank for a statistic is trained, expert, master, and legendary, your bonus equals your character’s level plus another number based on the rank (2, 4, 6, and 8, respectively). Proficiency ranks are part of almost every statistic in the game.

Emphasis mine.

I will say, it's understandable for people to miss this. Proficiency is presented really sloppily - the equation should really be a cutout in bold somewhere, considering how important it is. Instead it's explained in natural language in the second half of an unmarked paragraph on page 10. If you're skimming, you might miss it entirely.

Yeah, but the character sheet in the back, which I'm sure they expected most people would be copying to make their characters, has the same explanation.

[Pufferwockey]

I havent found a place in the book that lays it all out clearly but it looks to me like a character trained in a specific skill, save or weapon gets +level +proficiency bonus(2,4,6 or 8) +ability score modifier to the roll, whereas an untrained character just get's +ability score modifier. Is that right? Does a 20th level rogue with 20 dex get +33 to stealth(or hide or move silently or whatever the skills are called)?

The problem I'm seeing there is that, at higher levels, it would seem to either make untrained skill checks not worth attempting even for characters with +4s or +5s in the appropriate ability scores and/or make trained skill checks trivial.

EDIT I guess thats only like 5 points higher than what one would have gotten from a fully trained class skill in 3.5 but it still seems nuts to a guy who's been using 5e for a couple years

[Hellpyre]

Page 10 dude. Emphasis mine.

Ah. Mine is off then. It states the correct numbers, except that, like my copy of the playtest rulebook said untrained gets level-2, mine explicitly states that untrained gets level+0

[Rynjin]

For those transitioning from Pathfinder 1 to Pathfinder 2 a potential reason to dislike it for those who dislike it is you have to pay for things you used to get for free. In Pathfinder getting a level in a class or being a particular race just means poof now you can do something. In Pathfinder 2 you have to choose to select it by paying a feat. You get feats every level but depending on level can only use the feat for particular things. One level is for a class ability while another level is for skill use. Racial abilities are nerf hit hard with this. You do not get everything a race had in the beginning. You have to spend a feat at a later level for what you used to get at character creation.

I think I understand why they did it this way. The whole of character creation and leveling is the archetype system to be as customizable as possible. I haven't played it to give an informed opinion on how well it works, but I can say it makes the game quite complex. 5E probably spoiled customers in its simplicity of creating a character and leveling. You have choices, but they're limited. Pathfinder 2 makes Pathfinder 1 character creation look like a first grade reader. Complexity is not inherently a bad thing, but tastes will vary.

"Complex" is I think too good of a word for it. Complexity implies value.

PF2e is just complicated. A whole bunch of fiddly bull**** that doesn't add a ton of value to the game. The options themselves are simple and bare of much impact, but there are so many of them it overwhelms just looking at it in certain ways, and ha sa lot of "feels bad" mixed in, as you mentioned.

Pathfinder 1 is complex game; there are more meaningful choices to make any time a choice is forced. Hell, Savage Worlds is a complex game in that regard too. 5e sidesteps the issue by being simple instead, which while not my cup of tea, points to a clear design goal that Wizards tried and succeeded at hitting.

Pathfinder 2e is a hodgepodge of sometimes conflicting ideas that don't all work together. It is a nugget of something good with a kudzu of poorly implemented ideas hanging off of it.

[Kurald Galain]

The problem I'm seeing there is that, at higher levels, it would seem to either make untrained skill checks not worth attempting even for characters with +4s or +5s in the appropriate ability scores and/or make trained skill checks trivial.

Yes, and that's intentional. Expert vs. rookie means expert wins (like in 3E/PF), not that rookie defeats expert around 30% of the time (like in 4E/5E). The whole point of being an expert is that you automatically (or almost automatically) succeed at standard checks (like in basically every RPG ever except 4E/5E); and adventure writers should (and do) take that into account.

Not that I'm a fan of P2, but this is one of the spots where it meets its own design principles well.

[Crake]

Yes, and that's intentional. Expert vs. rookie means expert wins (like in 3E/PF), not that rookie defeats expert around 30% of the time (like in 4E/5E). The whole point of being an expert is that you automatically (or almost automatically) succeed at standard checks (like in basically every RPG ever except 4E/5E); and adventure writers should (and do) take that into account.

Not that I'm a fan of P2, but this is one of the spots where it meets its own design principles well.

This is one thing that irks me about 2e, the fact that everything gets bumped down a success category on a 1, even skills. So unless you beat the DC of something by 10 on a natural 1 (beating something by 10 is a critical success), your success is dropped down to a failure. This is something that my DM used to implement for skills in 3.5 (+/-10 on a natural 1/20), and it was a universally hated rule.

[Pufferwockey]

But my understanding that a 20th level rogue with legendary proficiency in stealth an 20 dex gets +33 on stealth checks is correct?

Yes, and that's intentional. Expert vs. rookie means expert wins (like in 3E/PF), not that rookie defeats expert around 30% of the time (like in 4E/5E). The whole point of being an expert is that you automatically (or almost automatically) succeed at standard checks (like in basically every RPG ever except 4E/5E); and adventure writers should (and do) take that into account.

Not that I'm a fan of P2, but this is one of the spots where it meets its own design principles well.

Here I think we're starting to get in to the flaws of the d20 based system where someone stronger than a real life record setting weightlifter (20 str) only beats an average joe with 10 str at arm wrestling something like 3/4 of the time (just a number I remember from way back, haven't actually done the math recently). 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.

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. Of course even the sorcerer who got 16 or better dex (which is spectacularly nimble for normal humans) for their AC isn't going to be as good as a trained acrobat, but when their back is to a metaphorical wall and they tell the GM they want to try something weird, I think a well designed game walks the line of not making the character who took proficiency or ranks or whatever in acrobatics feel cheated while still offering the sorcerer decent chance of managing to buckle some swash.

[The Glyphstone]

It almost sounds like they're trying to transition into a modular class-free system, but can't actually manage to break free of the siloing that comes inherent to class-based RPGs.

[Morty]

It almost sounds like they're trying to transition into a modular class-free system, but can't actually manage to break free of the siloing that comes inherent to class-based RPGs.

I'm not sure. Making more feats class-dependent and organizing them into level-based lists is less modular, not more.

[The Glyphstone]

I'm not sure. Making more feats class-dependent and organizing them into level-based lists is less modular, not more.

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.

[Pex]

Yes, and that's intentional. Expert vs. rookie means expert wins (like in 3E/PF), not that rookie defeats expert around 30% of the time (like in 4E/5E). The whole point of being an expert is that you automatically (or almost automatically) succeed at standard checks (like in basically every RPG ever except 4E/5E); and adventure writers should (and do) take that into account.

Not that I'm a fan of P2, but this is one of the spots where it meets its own design principles well.

Lofty goal. Unfortunately it has to fight against people who think there must be a chance of failure for everything. They'll never accept autosuccess as a thing. It's beyond the thread topic, but it's a problem for every game system. Some people even object to Take 10/20 that 3E/Pathfinder 1 has. In 5E they'll always demand a roll, never letting the PC do something just because the player wants to do it. However, I agree a novice should not succeed where an expert fails.

[Firechanter]

I'll mostly echo Hellpyre's assessment, with some addendums:

PF2 pretends to offer a plethora of choices, but most of these turn out to have very little impact. So they are basically phantom choices. Half of your choices fall into feat chains, so if you once make the choice to start a chain you're pretty much nailed down on it, unless you want to gimp yourself. The other half are rather meaningless super-situational miniature bonuses that may actually have an actual impact on the game less than 1 in a hundred times.

--

The other day I read an analogy on reddit that started out promising but then failed to follow through, so I'd like to offer my (expanded) version of it:

Imagine D20 games as ways to get a functional model robot:

3.5 and PF are a robotics kit. It is complicated and hard to learn, with rules on rules interacting with rules. The box contains lots of useless parts and many of the rules interactions aren't officially documented, so it can be very frustrating if you're not that much into robotics. However, it is very rewarding once you get the hang of it. Great for people who like to build their own robot.

5E is a toy robot. You don't build it yourself and it doesn't do much, but you get to pick the colour and have fun. Great for people who just want a toy.

PF2 is a model robot kit. You get to assemble the pieces yourself, but they are colour-coded and fit only in exactly the one way intended by the manufacturer, the only thing you really pick is the decals, and in the end you get a toy robot. Great for people who want to tell themselves they've built their own robot.

[martixy]

"Complex" is I think too good of a word for it. Complexity implies value.

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.

Lofty goal. Unfortunately it has to fight against people who think there must be a chance of failure for everything. They'll never accept autosuccess as a thing. It's beyond the thread topic, but it's a problem for every game system. Some people even object to Take 10/20 that 3E/Pathfinder 1 has. In 5E they'll always demand a roll, never letting the PC do something just because the player wants to do it. However, I agree a novice should not succeed where an expert fails.

It is what I call "circus gaming". 5e is the Heartstone of 3.5/PF1s Magic. It is no less valid a way of playing a game than any other. I has appeal. Perhaps broader appeal than the other option, in a culture of game streaming and "Let's plays". I however find it particularly unenjoyable (as does most of my gaming group). So, though we lament it, we suck up the complexity that buys us the depth we want of our game.

[MeeposFire]

Not really. PF came into existence because so many people didn't like 4e and were much happier to keep playing a (mostly) improved version of 3.5 via Pathfinder.

If 4e had been generally liked, PF wouldn't have taken off how it did.

Obvious example: There was no Pathfinder equivalent of 2e at the time, because most D&D gamers liked 3rd edition when it came out.

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).