Pathfinder 2e

[Lago PARANOIA]

All I'm saying is that I don't think its inherent shit.

No no no. Don't change the subject here. Actions in D&D are already overly complicated and you already have to track too much shit round-to-round. Who the fuck thinks it would be a good idea to increase the QUANTITY of available round-by-round options by at least an order of magnitude?

[Yesterday's Hero]

This was my original statement:

Pros: The 3 action economy is nice. In average sworders get an extra swing a level 1 which greatly speeds up play.

I don't know where are you getting all the other stuff from.

A) 3 equivalent actions: "This is the list of all the things you can do for 3 actions. Pick 1. Or pick one from the list of 2 action activities and one from the 1 action activities. Or 3 from that last list."

B) 3 different actions: "This is the list of all the things you can do with your standard action. Pick one. Then pick one from this other list for your move action and another for your swift action."

I don't think any option is inherently more complex. Please explain to me how I'm wrong or what I'm missing, because I'm not seeing it.

[Lago PARANOIA]

I don't think any option is inherently more complex. Please explain to me how I'm wrong or what I'm missing, because I'm not seeing it.

Do you seriously want me to explain how pigeonholing 3 sets with 9 objects each is more complex than 3 sets with, respectively, 3, 6, and 9 objects each?

Well, okay. I'd start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Partition_(number_theory)

[deaddmwalking]

I think the moment you say 'and this action costs 2 actions, and this action costs 3 actions, or this action COULD cost 1, but if you spend extra actions on it, you get a better result', you're really not making things less complex.

I think that the standard/move/swift works pretty well. The swift/immediate is a little difficult to explain, but they're essentially the same action type but some can only be taken on your turn; otherwise it works pretty well.

Pathfinder 2 FEELS punitive to me if drawing a weapon is ALWAYS an action.

In our heartbreaker we use the 3.x framework for action economy with one significant change; you can continue your move action before, during, or after your standard action. Ie, if you walk 15', stab a fool in the face and drop him, you can keep walking another 15'. In practice, it doesn't actually happen all that much, but it's nice that it exists.

[GâtFromKI]

No no no. Don't change the subject here. Actions in D&D are already overly complicated and you already have to track too much shit round-to-round. Who the fuck thinks it would be a good idea to increase the QUANTITY of available round-by-round options by at least an order of magnitude?

I think the general idea is to chose your available actions during character creation instead of during play. You may chose another action during play, but it won't be efficient. Thus, you should have less option paralysis during play.


Edit : an example. Let's say you want twf in pf2. At character creation, the choices are overwhelming, because there are several classes with different twf option: it can be two strikes for one action with full MAP, or two strike for two action with no MAP, and you can have a class able to reduce the MAP, and maybe you'll have to suffer full MAP but you can access a third action more usefull than "attack with a -10 penalty), and maybe you can access a cool combo by multiclassing...

But once the game begin, you've chosen one build, and you always do the same twf routine because it's the most efficient routine you have. Moreover, if you can't do your full routine - because you need one action to move or to stand up or to manipulate some lever - , you can do a partial routine.

[Yesterday's Hero]

Do you seriously want me to explain how pigeonholing 3 sets with 9 objects each is more complex than 3 sets with, respectively, 3, 6, and 9 objects each?

Yes, my reasoning was kinda dumb, but what GâtFromKI said holds true.

In practice you don't have that much analysis paralysis since the build you make dictates what kinds of actions are available to you and you just build up on that gradually as you gain levels so the complexity creeps slowly and becomes more manageable.

In practice, so far, it gives a bit more leeway on low levels ("I attack, then move, then attack again"), but I do agree that it is potentially more complex on a vacuum.

I didn't know about the "Act before or after your move" on the heartbreaker. Makes sense.

[jt]

An extremely complex optimization problem away from the table that boils down to a few optimized action sequences you always use at the table sounds like a worst case scenario for a game that's ostensibly played at said table. Your decisions should be determined by the shared narrative/tactical space, not by the static content of splatbooks.

[Lago PARANOIA]

But once the game begin, you've chosen one build, and you always do the same twf routine because it's the most efficient routine you have. Moreover, if you can't do your full routine - because you need one action to move or to stand up or to manipulate some lever - , you can do a partial routine.

In practice you don't have that much analysis paralysis since the build you make dictates what kinds of actions are available to you and you just build up on that gradually as you gain levels so the complexity creeps slowly and becomes more manageable.

Well, that explains that anecdote how the 4rries are intrigued by PF2. This is the same Five Moves of Doom shit we had 10 years ago. And here I had thought that was a crowning failure of 4E D&D's system on the level of Skill Challenges and the Magic Item Wishlist -- not a fucking selling point.

[OgreBattle]

A 3 action system can work, but the specific implementation is important, like after sundown Shadowrun warp cult works with 2 actions and a minor action for small stuff.

I like swift standard+move=full too, but the stuff with iterative attacks, pounce, vital strike made it waaay more clunky than it should be.

With PF2e, I can attack 3 times BUT each attack is iteratively worse, that’s adding clunk to their system right off the bat.
So there’s clunky legacy dragging down their new system

Perhaps if it was “roll 3 attack dice, hit once”, or defense also requires an action so expertise vs shock trooper vs power attack is baked into the core mechanic

[tussock]

Being able to do more than one thing in a round is good. It is for instance super important that you can move and attack in a game involving melee combat, because you might want to do melee at some point instead of just always chasing things.

Being able to do three things on your turn is however not so good. As soon as you can move, shoot, and move, you'll find there's huge fucking issues with hard cover and needing reactive out-of-turn actions and all sorts of other bullshit. Needing to ready actions is a sign that your opponent got too many fucking actions before you got your next one.

Also, it's usually a terrible idea to let people do things with their movement that is not movement. Maybe you do weak-ass stances or something, but extra attacks just bogs down combat something fierce, and combats where everyone stands still and uses full attacks are less interesting than otherwise.

Like, if 3e said your standard action included your full attacks, that'd be fine. That hurts nothing, and you can just give low level folks a couple of attacks so they don't have to feel bad about doing nothing quite so often.

--

I mean, if I'm doing PF2, I'd call them a Focus, a Move, and an Action. So you can

[*] Focus on some minor magic like turning on your fire sword or directing your wolf to bite someone or controlling your mount or just changing equipment, then
[*] Move by charging into melee or leaping a chasm or climbing the rigging, then
[*] Act by swording things with your attacks, or zapping with a wand, or ensorcelling folks with a spell.

So your rounds are tweaking something and then adjusting position somehow and then contributing to solving the problems at hand.

And you can even have a go at balancing magic with itself by requiring it takes focus to keep it keep working, and letting people have more focus if they don't move, and more movement if they don't take actions.

--

But mostly, the Fighters need to be better at Fighting than the monsters are. The Wizards need to be better at Wizarding than the monsters are. The Clerics, etc, etc. There's all sorts of concepts of getting the monsters and other NPCs to help the PCs, and it's important they are fucking well 2nd class actors when they do so, because the PCs are what the players of the game are using, and they come first.

CR 14 monsters that cast as a 16th level Cleric, while also being better Fighters than 14th level Fighters, are immensely fucking bad game design. Just use more monsters, FFS. Outnumber the PCs as a normal expectation of the game, massively outnumber them for a serious challenge. This is why we play in tunnels, because they fucking well outnumber us and we don't want to get swarmed. Dungeons and Pathfinders.

Gets into that whole thing about player-controlled difficulty. How much you rush, how deep you dive, determines how hard the game plays, but also determines the rate of reward, exponentially so.

And character options are what sells, so I guess there's character options. Meh, hopefully they're more fluff happy than they are useful.

And if we really want critical hits, have them land when you roll minimum damage. Rolled a 1? Roll again and add it. Critical hit. More fun all 'round without really breaking anything.

[GâtFromKI]

On the paizo's messageobard there's a subject about ambush. The situation described is: "a bunch of kobolds sets an ambush to the PCs". I think this is the kind of common situation that should be easily resolved by the system (at least for a D&D-like rpg); if the system has problem with this situation, there's no point in trying to handle any actual situation happening during an actual rpg game with this system.

The thread is 3 pages long, ie 120+ posts. And it has at least 1 children thread with 50 posts (about the "unnoticed" condition). There's a 35-year experience DM explaining he needed 4 session of play (and several reading of the rules) to understand how it works. And still, those people thinks the system is good. The thread contains some pearls like "It is a pretty amazing and flexible system" - because obviously, a D&D-like system unable to handle an ambush in a simple way is amazing.

... Reading the Paizo's messageboard is a bit like watching people eating their own shit. In slow motion. While agreeing the bad taste is the proof of the superior quality.

Anyway, the whole problem is: the Stealth roll to avoid being seen is the initiative roll. ie, encounter starts at the moment you roll for stealth. So it's totally possible to gain init while having noticed nothing - so you're in encounter mode, it's your turn to act, but there's nothing special (apart from the fact you hear the combat music and you're restricted to 3 action). And you shouldn't be denied your round because it would mean the surprise round is back and the surprise round was intentionally removed.

... The consensus in this case is that every single creature in pf2 has an undefectible spider-sense: they didn't notice anything but they know something is wrong and they start to look around. This is not a joke or an hyperbole, this is the actual consensus of the actual pf2 players on the actual PaizoBoard. Every single creature has an undefectible spider-sense.

And there are other problems; how do you decide where the encounter starts? Think about it: the ambushers want to start the encounter when the defending team is in the most possible disadvantageous position; if the defending team spots the ambush, they'll start the encounter from a more advantageous position (probably from further away), or maybe they can even avoid the whole encounter?

... Well they can't, since you determine if the ambush is spotted at the moment the initiative is rolled. So you start by deciding that the ambush is successful, and then you roll to determine if the ambush is successful. There's no way to avoid the ambush since you've already determined it is successful. There's no way to start in a more advantageous position since you've already determined the ambush is successful. If the DM decide there's an ambush, you have no way to spot/avoid it. Railroad to the maxxxxx!

Now let's imagine another situation: the rogue is scouting (in the usual sense) ahead of the party (*). He arrives at the ambush place, roll init! Because it's the init roll that will determine if he spot an ambusher and if he's spotted. Let's assume he spot an ambusher but no one spots him: since encounter mode has begun (init was rolled), when it's the turn of the ambushers, their spider-sense activates and they start looking for the rogue. Even if you sneak around an avoid notice, you can't avoid encounters. Hurray for railroad!

This is not a joke or an hyperbole: this is the actual opinion of several actual pf2 DM; like the actual 35-year-experience DM, who write: "[...] It would appear though that there is no way though using Sneak alone to achieve the condition of “Unnoticed” which is the condition most people seem to be concerned with. Personally I am content to say that it is more fun for an encounter to happen than to not happen so I like it the way it is." As I said, reading the PaizoBoard is like watching people eating their own shit in slow motion. My opinion: if after 35 years of DMing, you still think a rule that encourage railroading is a good rule, you should:
a/ stop playing rpgs - and maybe play Imperial Assault or another game where there are only scripted encounters.
b/ not breed (in order to improve the Human specie).


(*) Anyway, I don't think it's possible for the rogue to scout (in the usual sense). There's a "scout" activity in the explorations tactics: "You scout ahead and behind the group to watch danger, moving at half speed. At the start of the next encounter, every creature in your party gains a +1 circumstance bonus to their initiative rolls."

In other words, if the rogue is scouting:
1/ he has no way to spot an ambush, or any encounter for that matter, before encounter mode starts.
2/ when an encounter starts, he start with the party - and not "ahead" nor "behind".
3/ everyone gets +1 init, because that's what scouting is about.

I sincerely think the first sentence of the activity ("You scout ahead and behind the group to watch danger") is just a catch-all to prevent anyone from actually scouting; in other words, if a player says "I scout ahead of the party, trying to spot hazards and ambushes", RAW and RAI the DM should deny his action by answering "OK... It seems to be the scout tactic. If an encounter starts, you'll be with the party and everyone get +1 init".

And as you can see, the scout tactic doesn't involve stealth at all. This is quite consistent, since the system prevents you from being sneaky while looking around at the same time: if the tactic is about looking around to gather information, it can't be stealthy.

Last note: this impossibility to look around and to sneak at the same time is so nonsensical and integrated in the system, that everyone seems to enforce it for the PCs, but some posters seems not to enforce it for NPCs. There are poster explaining that if the party is sneaking, they can't spot the ambush (since they aren't looking around), but the ambushers get a roll to notice the PCs (although the ambushers are stealthy so they shouldn't be allowed to look around at the same time). I know many games that don't use the same rules for PCs and NPCs, pf2 is the only one I know where this asymmetry is in disfavor of the PCs.


... OK, now I think I can answer Lago (and Djelai and other people who have the same interrogation):

What does PF2 bring to the table?

pf2 removes every RPG element from pf. The game is designed to go from one encounter to another while ignoring everything the PC do in-between. It's a skirmish game (like Imperial Assault or other similar games) pretending to be a RPG, with rules designed to avoid any player input outside of combats.

If you want to play a skirmish game but your friends want to play a rpg, maybe pf2 is the game you need.


Side note 1: the skirmish part of pf2 seems good - there's a consensus among the people who have played it (including several non-fanboys) that the skirmishes are fun and the 3-action-system is cool. Maybe this consensus will change in the next 6 month or the next year, but right now it's the consensus; right now, when Yesterday's Hero explains the 3-action-system is cool, you shouldn't answer "no it isn't", you should ask yourself "why is it better than the sandard-move-swift-system ?".

Side Note 2: You can use pf2 to play rpg - you can use any skirmish game to play rpg since this is how rpg are born. But using pf2 to play rpg is just a giant Oberoni's fallacy: in order to do that, you have to ignore every rule that's not about combat (you have to ignore exploration rules, downtime rules, maybe the DC rules, etc).

[OgreBattle]

Do you have any examples of the 3 action system being cool in play?

It does seem cool as the comparison to "Fallout action points" was brought up, but I also feel that a horde of goblin skeletons all with 3 actions is going to be a bog. That they still have monk's "deal two attacks in one action with penalty and then it makes your 2nd action to do a 3rd attack modified by..." is cumbersome and weighing down their new edition with legacy stuff

[Username17]

right now, when Yesterday's Hero explains the 3-action-system is cool, you shouldn't answer "no it isn't", you should ask yourself "why is it better than the sandard-move-swift-system ?".

I disagree. In fact, I think that the people making the case for 'three actions' need to make that case and have not done so. Having all actions be the same and trade off one for one with each other is the base case. That 'move or attack' was the basic rule in D&D in the 1970s. The 'you get two simple actions on your turn' was Shadowrun in the 1990s.

The idea of splitting move and standard actions up into discrete non-fungible actions that could be spent differently was a conscious choice and a genuine advance over gaming systems of the previous century. If you want to roll it back, you gotta tell me why. Because I played D&D when moving caused you to lose an attack and that was shit.

-Username17

[Chamomile]

There is no way I'm touching a system that completely rules out the basic thrill of the goblin ambush. They're weak individually, but there's a lot of them and they're sneaky, so if they play their cards right, you'll first notice them when they fill your wizard with arrows and now you're trying to stabilize that guy and pull back. That is the soul of fighting goblins, and if it takes three pages of discussion and the ultimate conclusion is "the ambush is thwarted if the GM feels like it" then the goblin ambush goes from a deadly tactic that low-level characters fear because that's how you make a +10 Stealth bonus do work to a dick move that players fear because it's basically the GM throwing a bolt of lightning directly from the sky to kill a character if they feel like it.

[GâtFromKI]

The idea of splitting move and standard actions up into discrete non-fungible actions that could be spent differently was a conscious choice and a genuine advance over gaming systems of the previous century. If you want to roll it back, you gotta tell me why. Because I played D&D when moving caused you to lose an attack and that was shit.

This problem was even worse in D&D3, at least for martial characters: either you can full attack (with sometime 7 attacks and special bonus...), either you have a single attack because you had to move. pf2 is an improvement over that: if need to move, you still have two attacks.

Anyway, you don't depict how martial characters actually work in pf2: your 3 actions aren't the same. pf2 uses several way to make one of your action better than the other (some attacks cost 2 actions, other can only be done as your first attack of the turn, other can be done once per turn... Yes, everything is its own unique thing and it's a problem - the same problem as having several different power with the same name in D&D4).

in other words, you build your character, at the end you don't have a character who can either attack once, either attack twice, or attack three time. What you get is a character who has a Big Special Super Attack A, an OK Special Attack B, and a Meh Attack C. He can't do the same action twice in a round, so his normal sequence is ABC. If he lose an action (because he has to move or stand up or he's slowed or...), he will abandon his weakest action C: his sequence becomes AB, and he operates at more than 2/3 of his usual power because A and B are more powerful than C. If he loses 2 action, his sequance is A only, and that's at least half his usual power because A represents more than half his usual power.

From that point, the character can activate a lever because the encounter contains levers with special effects, and he doesn't feel he has lost his turn: he uses the AB sequence and it's a powerful sequence. He can throw an alchemist fire to make the scenery explode, and he doesn't feel he has lost his turn to make something cool: he uses his AB sequence at the same time. He can drink a healing potion and do AB. etc. The fact is: the sequence ABC is obviously better than the AB sequence, but he doesn't feel he loses that much when he does AB.

Note: I don't speak about casters because... Casters are worthless in pf2. Common Magic in pf2 does the same thing as magic in Baldur's Gate - ie it does nothing a martial can't do.


Anyway:

I disagree. In fact, I think that the people making the case for 'three actions' need to make that case and have not done so. Having all actions be the same and trade off one for one with each other is the base case. That 'move or attack' was the basic rule in D&D in the 1970s. The 'you get two simple actions on your turn' was Shadowrun in the 1990s.

I disagree as well. The people who have played pf2 and who say the action economy is more fun aren't trying to make a case: they attest they had more fun than with the old action economy. This is anecdotal evidence, but when everyone seems to have the same anecdotal evidence, you, as a game designer, should ask yourself why everyone feels the same instead of rejecting their feelings. You shouldn't ask them to theorize their feeling and make a case - you're the game designer, you should be the one creating a big theory explaining why they feel how they feel.

Anyway, as I said, the overall consensus may change in the next year or so. Hence you can make a case explaining why people have more fun at first, but at the same time in the grand scheme of things it will lead to several problems etc. Or stuff like this: you can deny the new action economy is cool. What you can't deny is the fact people playing pf2 right now have more fun with the new action economy than the old one.

[OgreBattle]

Ok reading up on the 3 action system...
https://ii.reddit.com/r/Pathfinder_RPG/ ... feel_like/

That's an archived thread from 2018 on how there is a cool combo system where you have attacks that are openers (your first attack) and press (following moves)... but it feels backwards
- The debuffs are presses, not openers
- The big damage low accuracy attacks are openers, not presses

Don't know if it's been changed since 1 year, but that is an example of the system being interesting but what you do with it falling flat.

D&D5e's fighter with superiority dice (4 encounter powers) and action surge (1-2 daily extra standard action) fulfills that combo goal.


That thread brings up FFG's L5R RPG which I don't recall:

I playtested FFG's new Legend of the Five Rings RPG, and it had a cool mechanic for combat. (And non-combat too, but let's focus on the fighting for now.) It isn't an exact match for PF2, but the concepts could be adapted.

The L5R game used a dice pool (you'd roll dice equal to your Stat plus your Skill rating, and could keep a number of dice equal to your Stat). Your stats corresponded with the 'five rings' of the title, and represented -- very generally --

Air - sneakiness
Earth - sturdiness;
Fire - recklessness
Water - adaptability
Void - serenity

You could use any stat for any action (normally). So you might stab a guy with a savage yell (fire) or with a cautious probe (water). Some foes were more resistant to one ring and more vulnerable to another.

It used custom dice that had some combination of symbols on their faces: success, exploding success (i.e., roll and keep an extra die), opportunity, and strife.

You usually needed 2 successes to hit. Anything more just did more damage.

Strife was sort of like nonlethal damage to yourself. If your strife got too high, you could keep fighting, but you lost your composure and it would be easy for enemies to critically hit you.

Opportunities were where things got interesting. You could spend opportunities to help your teammates or have some other effect on the combat. Which opportunity options were available varied based on which ring you were using.

If you got opportunity with the Air ring, you might spend it to learn what ring your enemy was strong or vulnerable against, or to create an opening an ally could take advantage of.

Earth opportunity? An ally could reduce their strife by 1, because you're so reliable, it makes them confident. Or you could ignore difficult terrain for a turn.

Fire opportunity? One enemy gets 1 strife because you're distracting or intimidating. Or your initiative improves.

Water? You remove 1 strife from yourself, or you can move your enemy a bit into dangerous terrain.

Void? You sense something about the supernatural around you, or give yourself on a bonus on a check next round that doesn't use Void ring.

Also, based on what ring you used, you got another benefit.

Air - your enemies need 3 successes to hit you
Earth - enemies have a harder time critting or inflicting conditions on you
Fire - if you hit, any strife you rolled gives you +1 damage
Water - you can get an extra move action
Void - you can ignore strife results on your own dice

It's a simple suite of options, but it encouraged a lot of small flavorful adjustments during combat. I feel they could do something similar -- maybe just three options -- and have it fit with PF2's overall style.

That sounds neat

----

If I did the 3 actions system I'd...
- Have 1, 2, or 3 attacks a turn all be the same modifier, balance hp, AC and so on around this
- Roll attacks against 1 target all at the same time
- Have the defensive action not be physically holding a shield up exclusive, so the 3 action economy is your 'replacement' for expertise, power attack, shock trooper
- Have an action to cover an adjacent ally and intercept enemies
- Stick with the 3 attack/defense economy, flurry and twf do not turn 1 action into 2 attacks
- Warrior and stabbity archtypes apply some rider or get a bonus action for landing 2-3 attack, like a rogue can backflip away, a barbarian can bite them, etc.

So the decision point of melee is going attack/attack/attack or defense/defense/attack or attack/defend/intercept and so on.... but a 2 action (plus a swift/minor action) system would be easier to do that

[Username17]

What you can't deny is the fact people playing pf2 right now have more fun with the new action economy than the old one.

Counterpoint: people who eat shit do so because they like eating shit.

If a majority of people were switching from D&D variants to PF2 or even if a majority of former Pathfinder players were making the leap into PF2, an argument to popularity would hold some weight.

However in reality PF2 remains fringe and is making very little dent into the overall gaming scene. A majority of people don't seem to like it. The fact that of the people who give a crap about this fail train, they almost universally like or at least accept the action economy doesn't mean that the action economy is popular or good. It just means that everything else about this shit show is worse.

-Username17

[souran]

This problem was even worse in D&D3, at least for martial characters: either you can full attack (with sometime 7 attacks and special bonus...), either you have a single attack because you had to move. pf2 is an improvement over that: if need to move, you still have two attacks.

Anyway, you don't depict how martial characters actually work in pf2: your 3 actions aren't the same. pf2 uses several way to make one of your action better than the other (some attacks cost 2 actions, other can only be done as your first attack of the turn, other can be done once per turn... Yes, everything is its own unique thing and it's a problem - the same problem as having several different power with the same name in D&D4).

Ok, but the problem you note in your paragraph here is fixed better by 5e D&D and that is a sentence I never thought I would write.

In 5e some characters just get the ability to make 2 attacks with their attack actions. That works just fine. Additionally, fighting with a weapon in your off hand uses your bonus action and that works pretty well too.

I agree that iterative attacks in 3.x where badly designed. The "you can't use these unless you stand still" was a huge nerf to martial characters and made pretty much every optimal (martial) build into one punch man.

However, what can you actually DO with the 3 action system that you can't do more simply with the 5e movement/action/bonus action (ugh I hate those names)? I am an early adopter type and generally like new things. I am given towards kinda liking PF2e as an overall game (even with its flaws).

However, I keep coming back to 2 main issues:

1) While there are lots of character options, at the end of building your character you can't actually do anything more than a 5e character can. You just have an ability on your sheet that gives you a bonus or cancels a penalty. Meanwhile, if you want to be a dual wielding 5e character you just put a weapon in your off hand.

2) A lot of the new rules add complexity in order to achieve results that don't do anything that 5e doesn't do without the baggage. They had to develop a whole new signage for their 3 action economy. Sure it doesn't take much effort to learn but it also doesn't do anything better.

5e D&D assumes you played enough 3.x D&D to just use the stealth rules from that game from memory because it has function calls to rules that only exist in earlier editions. PF2E rewrote the stealth system so that stealth doesn't work. 4E D&D would turn trying to stealth around an encounter into a skill challenge that would either always result in a failure or let the barbarian stealth by using his intimidation roll and so it was trivial for everybody to succeed. PF2E inlcudes links in stealthing that as others have pointed out, make it seem like you can't actualy see the guards you are stealthing past. Also, if your "stealth leader" helps everybody stealth he has to call out directions that the rules are unclear as to weather that breaks stealth or not.

You can (and I assume people will) play with some partial subset of the complete rules that covers all the stuff people are willing to remember and tosses the unworkable out like the garbage it is. The rules for both 5e stealth and PF2e stealth are terrible. However, the effort to get to a table agreement that won't result in the parties rogue spending the whole evening in a hissy fit for 5e seems to be a lot less than the same effort for PF2e.

PF2e is going to live and die based on the quality of its Adventure Paths. The biggest advantage that they have is that the 5E team can't write an adventure whose plotline doesn't suck. The only AP they have with a plot that is remotely interesting (Tyranny of Dragons) is the one where the actual encounters within the adventure are broken and massively overpowered. Also, they outsourced the writing of that one to Kobold Press.

[Yesterday's Hero]

I've read a lot of people on the Paizo forum complain about a lot of things repeatedly. The new proficiency system, for instance, is not fully accepted even by hardcore adopters, as are the alchemy items and the "DCs by level" table.

Not so much for the 3 action economy. I don't recall a single instance of people bashing it.

"Peeking out of cover, shooting, and getting on cover again" is a real issue with the system, yes, but "Attack + Move + Swift" systems that let you break up your movement before of after the attack have it too.

And can't yet give a definitive answer to the "why is 3 actions better than Attack + Move + Swift?", I don't have enough experience with the new system yet. It might prove to be a shit show down the line, but so far it’s proving to be interesting.

Shit eaters love the taste of shit, but they can also be right twice a day.

As for the adventure paths... I haven't read all of the APs for first edition, but I've read all of Rise of the Runelords anniversary, Kingmaker and Iron Gods (and DMed over 3/4 of each) and about 20 other single episodes from assorted APs and ALL OF THEM are better and more engaging than Age of Ashes, which is pure shit.

[souran]

As for the adventure paths... I haven't read all of the APs for first edition, but I've read all of Rise of the Runelords anniversary, Kingmaker and Iron Gods (and DMed over 3/4 of each) and about 20 other single episodes from assorted APs and ALL OF THEM are better and more engaging than Age of Ashes, which is pure shit.

There are a lot of terrible PF1E adventure pathfs. There are also some ones with some unique ideas that just don't work (reign of winter) and some that are very memorable (Strange Aeons) and a whole bunch that are good enough (Rise of the Runelords, King Maker, Shattered Star, Return of the Runelords). Even the ones that are "sandboxy" tend to have a few adventures within the path that are on rails. However, the plots (generally) make sense and can be followed by a person who uses regular human logic and do not require 1980s adventure game logic.

D&D 5e APs range from bad and sandboxy (princes of the appocolypse) to nostalgia filled bad sandbox (Curse of Strahd), to bad railroad with plot (Tyranny of Dragons) to bad railroad with no plot to speak of (dungeon of the mad mage). The biggest advantage of the newer paths is that they tend to not be completely fatal if the DM doesn't pull his punches like the early ones were.

Also, 5E has appearently given up on writting content for players higher than level 10. This is...really bad when levels 1-3 are "apprentice levels" and most classes don't really get their unique thing till level 5. Most people won't stick with the game long enough to need the game to go to level 20 but your APs should at least try and get players to the 12-15 range (IMHO).

[malak]

PF2 fell to #13, behind old 5e supplements (Volo, Mordenkainen, Xanathar), behind the preorders for the Eberron Setting, the Baldur's Gate Adventure and the Essentials Box...


https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Boo ... ooks/16211

[Suzerain]

Behind the DM screen too, which is just a D&D branded piece of cardboard. Further down is the bestiary, behind such luminary classics as the Elder Scrolls cookbook, various Zelda themed books, a few sets of spell cards, and a millenial-themed version of a traditional Mexican game of chance.

[souran]

So based on the activity on various forums and reddit, I can't see any real edition waring going on between PF2E and 5E. There are no "my whole group is changing! threads on any of the 5E sites.

There are not even any real PF 1E vs. 2E edition arguments going on. It's just like the PF 1E players are ignoring it and PF 2E players mostly posting threads about how they like it but are confused by [entire rulebook listed one rule at a time]

[Lago PARANOIA]

If there aren't any real edition wars AND people aren't converting to the new product, it means that your product is a dud because no one cares enough about it to become emotionally invested or compete for mindshare.

I'm increasingly coming to the conclusion that edition wars are a prerequisite to having a good product. Can someone name a new edition of any TTRPG that didn't have a significant edition war yet turned out to be relatively successful? I think you have 4E Shadowrun and that's it.

[Kevin Mack]

Yeah was something I noticed as well for 2E there was hardly any activity about it on any websites I go to either praising or bashing was at best big old load of meh.

Also if there relying on the AP's to keep them afloat then there in trouble cause the new one as said is really kinda shit (and I say this as someone who owns all the Ap's) Possibly the worse one I've ever seen.