Puffin Forest’s In Depth Review of Pathfinder 2e

[Scott Ruggels]

Puffin Forest has posted and extensive review of the Second Edition of Paizo’s Pathfinder rules. In terms of crunch. It is a step away from the simplicity of D&D 5e, and that may have been a problem for him and his two game groups. I. Was mentally comparing his analysis to how gaming used to be,  to how it is now. See what you think of this 

 

[Ragitsu]

Never before have I encountered a system that is quite as simultaneously simple and complex as Pathfinder 2nd Edition. I prefer a Chime of Opening that just...opens locks. End of story. PF 2e makes damn near every magical item so very granular and overly mechanical in how it interacts with the world.

 

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition ->

 

 

Quote

 

 

Chime of Opening: A chime of opening is a hollow mithral tube about 1 foot long. When it is struck, it sends forth magical vibrations that cause locks, lids, doors, valves, and portals to open. The device functions against normal bars, shackles, chains, bolts, etc. The chime of opening also destroys the magic of a hold portal spell or even a wizard lock cast by a wizard of less than 15th level.

 

The chime must be pointed at the area of the item or gate which is to be loosed or opened. It is then struck, a clear chiming ring sounds (which may attract monsters), and in one round the target lock is unlocked, the shackle is loosed, the secret door is opened, or the lid of the chest is lifted. If a chest is chained, pad-locked, locked, and wizard locked, it will take four soundings of the chime of opening to get it open. A silence spell negates the power of the device. The chime has 1d8 x 10 charges before it cracks and becomes useless.

 

 

Pathfinder 2nd Edition ->

 

Quote

 

CHIME OF OPENING - ITEM 6

 

UNCOMMON EVOCATION MAGICAL

 

Price 235 gp

 

Usage held in 2 hands; Bulk L

 

This hollow mithral tube is about a foot long and bears engravings reminiscent of open locks and broken chains. The chime can be activated 10 times before it cracks and becomes useless.

 

Activate [one-action] Interact;

 

Effect You aim the chime at a container, door, or lock you want to open and strike the chime. The chime sends out magical vibrations that attempt a Thievery check against the lock’s DC, with a Thievery bonus of +13. This targets only one lock or binding at a time, so you might need to activate the chime multiple times to open a target with several forms of protection.

 

 

I don't hate granularity (you're talking to someone that enjoys GURPS and HERO), but I do expect my Dungeons & Dragons or D&D-flavored games to be on the chunky side.

[Scott Ruggels]

Makes my a little nostalgic for FGU titles like  Chivalry and Sorcery, or Bushido. I think Living Steel was similarly complex, but not as well designed as P2. Thankfully, it does not seem to have a narrative economy system. 
 

Puffin’s summation on character creation, and his ambivalence on the subject because of how long it takes, and character ownership in general, was fascinating, in that he is so different than I am, and that I believe he would be a poor fit for Hero. 
 

which leads my to my thoughts of trying to recruit new players from D&D 5e is a bad idea. We should probably recruit from PF2 players. 😁

 

but is also leads some strength to the idea that and FLGS introduction to Hero, should have pregens only, and avoid character generation entirely. Make things easy for the players and the shop referee to just put out the mat, tokens, dice and play. 
 

 

[Ragitsu]

43 minutes ago, Scott Ruggels said:

Makes my a little nostalgic for FGU titles like  Chivalry and Sorcery, or Bushido. I think Living Steel was similarly complex, but not as well designed as P2. Thankfully, it does not seem to have a narrative economy system.

 

The "Bulk" subsystem caused my skin to crawl. Tallying up pounds of equipment is too great a burden? Truly? However, while I still won't use this simplified method, I did stumble across a similar optional rule in an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition supplement. It looks like that game mechanic is older than I thought.

[Scott Ruggels]

15 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

 

The "Bulk" subsystem caused my skin to crawl. Tallying up pounds of equipment is too great a burden? Truly? However, while I still won't use this simplified method, I did stumble across a similar optional rule in an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition supplement. It looks like that game mechanic is older than I thought.

In most games, since Soldiers carry about 80 lbs of Sustainment gear, I figure that Adventurers carry about the same, more or less and hand wave the rest. Tracking weight and encumbrance ance, just reduces travel distance, not speed. I read a lot of military books going back a century Or more and a lot o GMs fell into this realism craze around 1978-80 that you can still see echoes of in any crunchy game from that time. Encumbrance was seen to be a balancing issue.   Go backpacking sometime. It will give you a realistic appreciation of adventuring. I did it in various period military gear for about 10 years until 9-11 and I was not in great shape but at 80 lbs I could do it

[Scott Ruggels]

I have to admit, there is a certain elegance to how the action economy works in Pathfinder 2 though. Move, hit, move. Hit, move, hit(-5). Prep spell, launch spell, move, ect. The big numbers, though get unwieldy, quickly. 

[archer]

I really enjoy Puffin Forest but it's plain that he hasn't gamed extensively in anything crunchy.

[archer]

 

[zslane]

4 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

I have to admit, there is a certain elegance to how the action economy works in Pathfinder 2 though. Move, hit, move. Hit, move, hit(-5). Prep spell, launch spell, move, ect. The big numbers, though get unwieldy, quickly. 

 

The penalties to attacks after the first don't really make much sense to me. Since each of the three action segments are treated equally (i.e., equal time and effort), why should a second attack incur a penalty other than as some sort of crude balancing measure? It just feels like a design kludge to me.

 

1 hour ago, archer said:

I really enjoy Puffin Forest but it's plain that he hasn't gamed extensively in anything crunchy.

 

His GMing style is quite loose and, shall we say casual. It seems like his group is more interested in being silly and outrageous than simulating a fantasy world with any degree of seriousness. Which is fine because they always seem to be having quite a bit of fun, but I don't think you'll necessarily get a very clear view of a game system through his lens.

[pinecone]

5 hours ago, Scott Ruggels said:

In most games, since Soldiers carry about 80 lbs of Sustainment gear, I figure that Adventurers carry about the same, more or less and hand wave the rest. Tracking weight and encumbrance ance, just reduces travel distance, not speed. I read a lot of military books going back a century Or more and a lot o GMs fell into this realism craze around 1978-80 that you can still see echoes of in any crunchy game from that time. Encumbrance was seen to be a balancing issue.   Go backpacking sometime. It will give you a realistic appreciation of adventuring. I did it in various period military gear for about 10 years until 9-11 and I was not in great shape but at 80 lbs I could do it

Fit soldiers have carried from 60 to 100 pounds of gear at least from Roman time. Adventurers are likely the same....encumbrance is for the weedy MU Lol....

[Scott Ruggels]

3 hours ago, zslane said:

 

The penalties to attacks after the first don't really make much sense to me. Since each of the three action segments are treated equally (i.e., equal time and effort), why should a second attack incur a penalty other than as some sort of crude balancing measure? It just feels like a design kludge to me.

 

It’s a tax on killing things too quickly. That’s all. I am sure there is some fear for removing attack penalties, or a Magic item. This IS Pathfinder after all. 

 

3 hours ago, zslane said:

 

 

His GMing style is quite loose and, shall we say casual. It seems like his group is more interested in being silly and outrageous than simulating a fantasy world with any degree of seriousness. Which is fine because they always seem to be having quite a bit of fun, but I don't think you'll necessarily get a very clear view of a game system through his lens.

mai was under the same impression, until he ran under another GM, who ran Curse of Strahd 5e for their group. He played things straight, and had one silly player, and she paid dearly for it at the end. Convinced me never to play in that module. 

[Scott Ruggels]

2 hours ago, pinecone said:

Fit soldiers have carried from 60 to 100 pounds of gear at least from Roman time. Adventurers are likely the same....encumbrance is for the weedy MU Lol....

This is why MUs have horses (Shadowfax), or donkeys. Or maybe even Tenser’s Floating Disk. They don’t want pack straps to muss their robes or collar. 

[archer]

3 hours ago, pinecone said:

Fit soldiers have carried from 60 to 100 pounds of gear at least from Roman time. Adventurers are likely the same....encumbrance is for the weedy MU Lol....

 

My impression was that was their "marching weight" rather than their preferred "fighting weight". They'd fight wearing a full pack if surprised but the plan was always that they'd make camp then approach the enemy in formation without carrying their camp gear on their backs.

 

But I'll admit that it's been 30+ years since I've read anything authoritative on the subject.

[Certified]

Listing to this, a lot of the fears that I had with D&D 4e seem to rise up again here. Pathfinder 2e doesn't seem geared for the table but rather the computer where tracking all the minutia is handled on the back end and doesn't take time out of the came. This idea of 40+ conditions some with scaling levels really speaks to this. 

 

With that said, Pathfinder is the game that got me to walk away from D&D in general. More so, this was over something they talk about in the video, prep time and encounter balance. 

[zslane]

Encounter balance is hard to nail in the absence of a point-build system, IMO. And even point-based games aren't perfect in this regard either. One of the benefits of "old school" RPGing is the general disregard for encounter balance on a mechanical level. It is up to the players to use common sense and realize that their party of 3rd level characters are no match for the two stone giants they just stumbled upon, and judiciously try to slip past undetected rather than engage them in combat in the mistaken belief that the GM (and/or the published module) has arranged the encounter to be "winnable".

 

I primarily blame video games (MMORPGs in particular) for establishing this mentality in players.

[Scott Ruggels]

6 hours ago, Certified said:

With that said, Pathfinder is the game that got me to walk away from D&D in general. More so, this was over something they talk about in the video, prep time and encounter balance. 

 

Very interested in hearing more about this.  How did things change for you?

[Ragitsu]

5 hours ago, zslane said:

One of the benefits of "old school" RPGing is the general disregard for encounter balance on a mechanical level. It is up to the players to use common sense and realize that their party of 3rd level characters are no match for the two stone giants they just stumbled upon, and judiciously try to slip past undetected rather than engage them in combat in the mistaken belief that the GM (and/or the published module) has arranged the encounter to be "winnable".

 

That is one of the stronger selling points that made AD&D 2e appealing to me when I discovered it about a year ago; even low HD monsters can be armed with save-or-die attacks or no-save non-lethal incapacitating effects. You're forced to engage in more lateral thinking compared to later versions of D&D when players caught onto the fact that the marionettes and shadow puppets are incapable of breaking from an accountant's script. It is amazing how these games of yesteryear feel less like games and more like fairy tales/legends (that didn't cling to "statistical balance"). Increased competition with video games/massively multiplayer online roleplaying games has hurt the evolution of tabletop roleplaying games.

 

If a DM/GM is competent enough (through natural talent, experience or some combination of the two) and the players are largely on the same page as far as "common sense" and genre conventions go, there are going to be fewer bumps in the road when it comes to judgment calls made by both sides.

[Certified]

1 hour ago, Scott Ruggels said:

 

Very interested in hearing more about this.  How did things change for you?

 

Some context, by this point, I had already published Fractured Kingdom and investing into games like Apocalypse World. More so, I had begun work on Metahumans Rising. The Pathfinder campaign we were running involved a fair amount of high fantasy politics. This led to several human opponents that needed to be a challenge that had contingency plans in case they needed to escape. Not sure what this says about me, but I don't like to pull the same trick twice, so this meant investing time researching different tactics, and some creative dungeon design.  This was mostly going down around the tween levels (9-12) so there was a real wealth of options available to both me as a GM and to the players. This led to spending hours creating NPCs for their first appearance, and then additional time as they leveled up along the way. No one likes a villain getting away so players began investing into gear and equipment to shut this down, no problem there, also Tanglefoot bags are like a poor-person's Enervation, and can be brutal. Where the problem came in is "capture" isn't really a D&D/Pathfinder thing. (Although I think 5e makes some strides here.) This led to good characters feeling they had to now kill defenseless NPCs and while one player justifies this as killing and evil character can't be an evil act, that doesn't sit well with other players. However, that's a different story. 

 

One of the worst, non-fight/fights we had was when a Wizard NPC kicked a stand holding a crystal ball into a pit to give himself an opportunity to escape.  A greedy PC leaps in afterwards before realizing the action economy being what it is, they would be taking 300 feet of falling damage before being able to cast a spell to catch themselves.  The player fully admitted this was their mistake, but it felt wrong for the style of play Pathfinder encourages. At this point, Resurrection was an option, it was going to take some time, but there was a lot of bad feelings because the Crystal Ball was destroyed, and the group felt like I was punishing them by having an NPC try to escape.   After wrapping up the current story line, we walked away from Pathfinder in favor of a board game break, and then some beta testing for me. The group broke up during the beta test for very, very unrelated reasons, and I ended up moving out of state. 

 

 

[Ragitsu]

Scott, I hope you don't mind me commandeering your thread for one more post that isn't specifically focused on Pathfinder 2nd Edition.

 

Magical items are becoming increasingly watered down with every edition. The fact that you can purchase such wonders from vendors of the arcane (often located in any population center larger than a town) reflects their decreased value. A cloak of elvenkind pre-D&D 3e is a genuine treasure to be cherished; a cloak of elvenkind in D&D 3e and beyond is almost always a "skill buff".

 

--- --- ---

--- --- ---

--- --- ---

 

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition ->

 

Quote

Cloak of Elvenkind: This cloak of neutral gray cloth is indistinguishable from an ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when it is worn, with the hood drawn up around the head, it enables the wearer to be nearly invisible—the cloak has chameleon-like powers.

 

Outdoors, in natural surroundings, the wearer of the cloak is almost totally invisible; in other settings, he is nearly so. However, the wearer is easily seen if violently or hastily moving, regardless of the surroundings. The invisibility bestowed is:

 

Outdoors, natural surroundings
heavy growth 100%
light growth 99%
open fields 95%
rocky terrain 98%

 

Urban surroundings
buildings 90%
brightly lit room 50%

 Underground
torch/lantern light 95%
infravision 90%
light/continual light 50%

 

Fully 90% of these cloaks are sized for human or elven-sized persons. The other 10% are sized for smaller persons (4 feet or so in height).

 

 

Anyone can benefit from this cloak and it remains useful from start to finish.  Even the Fighter donned in plate mail can function as an adequate scout. In tandem with boots of elvenkind, you can monkey about in cluttered environs with near-impunity.

---

 

Dungeons & Dragons 3.5e ->

 

Quote

Cloak of Elvenkind

This cloak of neutral gray cloth is indistinguishable from an ordinary cloak of the same color. However, when worn with the hood drawn up around the head, it gives the wearer a +5 competence bonus on Hide checks.

 

Faint illusion; CL 3rd; Craft Wondrous Item, invisibility, creator must be an elf; Price 2,500 gp; Weight 1 lb.

 

This is (essentially) useful only to Rogues, Bards, Rangers and Monks. That bonus is okay to begin with, but it rapidly depreciates as the Levels roll on. At a certain point, after you've obtained three of four of these, you're better off cutting up the cloth to make and sell diapers of elvenkind at a high premium.

---

 

 Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition ->

 

Quote

Cloak of Elvenkind

 

Requires Attunement

While you wear this cloak with its hood up, Wisdom (Perception) checks made to see you have disadvantage. and you have advantage on Dexterity (Stealth) checks made to hide, as the cloak's color shifts to camouflage you. Pulling the hood up or down requires an action.

 

Even this incarnation is tepid. You're still required to be at least somewhat specialized in stealth.

---

 

Pathfinder 2nd Edition ->

 

CLOAK OF ELVENKIND - ITEM 7+

 

ILLUSION INVESTED MAGICAL

 

Usage worn cloak; Bulk L

 

This cloak is deep green with a voluminous hood, embroidered with gold trim and symbols significant in elven culture. The cloak allows you to cast the ghost sound cantrip as an arcane innate spell. When you adjust the cloak’s clasp (an Interact action), the cloak transforms to match the environment around you and muffles your sounds, granting you a +1 item bonus to Stealth checks.

 

Activate [two-actions] Interact; Frequency once per day; Effect You draw the hood up and gain the effects of invisibility, with the spell’s normal duration or until you pull the hood back down, whichever comes first. If you’re also wearing boots of elvenkind, you can activate this ability twice per day.

 

Type cloak of elvenkind; Level 7; Price 360 gp

 

--- --- ---

 

Type greater cloak of elvenkind; Level 12; Price 1,750 gp

 

The cloak grants a +2 item bonus, and the effects of 4th-level invisibility. If you’re also wearing boots of elvenkind, the greater cloak of elvenkind allows you to Sneak in forest environments even when creatures are currently observing you.

 

Twenty years later, there is finally some meat on the bones. Nevertheless, this offering is a mixed one.

Cloak of Elvenkind: ghost sound is an okay fringe benefit, though I fail to see what it has to do with the core concept of this magical item. You're receiving a constant bonus to Stealth checks, which means you're once again tethered to a class that can sneak. Invisibility is a solid effect, no question about that; however...this is a "once per day" trick and it can be detected/dispelled by the appropriate magic (or a sack of flour). Furthermore, the PF 2e cloak breaks from its trappings (the original item isn't a ring of invisibility in cloak form) in order to appear impressive.

Greater Cloak of Elvenkind: The issue with class requirement is the same, though you are (apparently) invisible all the time? Other than keeping quiet, I am not sure why you would need to make Stealth checks while invisible. It appears as though the complementary benefit bestowed on the wearer when they're also equipped with boots of elvenkind is worse than the original cloak (which let you creep about in multiple environment types without requiring another magical item).

 

--- --- ---

--- --- ---

--- --- ---

 

There we go .

[Ragitsu]

Edit: Never mind.

[zslane]

Well, if magic items can't all be reduced to modifiers applied to the basic combat mechanics, then how do you expect a TTRPG to effectively simulate an MMORPG?

 

Say what you will about the heavy degree of abstraction in a game like Apocalypse World, at least it never feels like a pen&paper reconstruction of MMORPG mechanics. Even though I am unlikely to ever play them, I must tip my hat to the myriad indie RPG designs of the last several years for breaking from the gravity well of MMORPG-inspired conventions that have infected Pathfinder and D&D.

[Scott Ruggels]

Well the thing is, is I legitimately had fun using Pathfinder First Edition.  I played through most of "The Mummy's Mask", and a good chunk of "The Emerald Spire", with radically different characters. Mostly I think, because of the quality of the writing of The Adventure paths, and judging by the differences between our adventures in The mummy's Mask, and the game detailed in the "Quotes from This Week's game" thread. We met different NPC's, had different outcomes. In the systems itself, i was able to build VERY different characters. A Carefree Recent college Graduate Sorcerer from a well to do political family from Absalom, and a Timid Lupine Barbarian Female from the wilds. (Her "rage" only triggered if she took any HP of Damage, or was startled.)  She was usually quiet, observant but pointed out the obvious frequently, Tries to be polite and diplomatic. Really a non standard barbarian, and the system supported both really well.  Where the system fell apart, was above 10th level, where either the party was too powerful, or the opposition was entirely too lethal, as the system swung wildly back and forth.
 

Pathfinder 2, I have just read through the  Free Playtest Rules PDF, but it seemed more complex.  It looked great on paper, but seeing how the combat worked in practice was eye opening.  Basically the combat rules , and the 48 conditions, that were not all mutually exclusive with each other, so many stacked up, increased the complexity to the point of 15mm Napoleonic Miniatures rules. Now this is not a bad thing in my eyes as I still war game, but it's probably going to drive off FLGS table players that have to pay table rent, and don't have a lot of patience.  (It may also increase the amount of "looking at one's phone" for the folks who don't have a turn.) The increase in feats, and character customization is almost into the HERO) level of customization, or more like R. Talsorian's Life Path system from the various editions of Cyberpunk.  

 

I believe this may be a departure from the MMORPG emulation that D&D 4th Edition went whole hog into, and other have followed ever since. But, the observation that one might need computer assistance (that Hero seems to need as well for many people), does seem to indicate that accountancy was a factor in the design.  The fact that Puffin had to make a combat Matrix on a cheat sheet, shows that  gamer aids are kind of required for Pathfinder 2nd.

[pinecone]

On 8/4/2020 at 9:10 PM, archer said:

 

My impression was that was their "marching weight" rather than their preferred "fighting weight". They'd fight wearing a full pack if surprised but the plan was always that they'd make camp then approach the enemy in formation without carrying their camp gear on their backs.

 

But I'll admit that it's been 30+ years since I've read anything authoritative on the subject.

I don't think you are wrong, but soldiers tend to "load up" till they hit that limit Modern soldiers may stash gear in a vehicle, but Armor, weapon, ammo, and supplies will get you right back up there.

[archer]

1 hour ago, pinecone said:

I don't think you are wrong, but soldiers tend to "load up" till they hit that limit Modern soldiers may stash gear in a vehicle, but Armor, weapon, ammo, and supplies will get you right back up there.

 

Soldiers back in that era also tended to collect spoils from battle whether they were supposed to or not.

[unclevlad]

WRT the cloak of elvenkind, tho, iin 2E t's using a completely disconnected "skill roll."  It doesn't connect with anything else, which is structurally very poor.

 

The problems in 3E were manifold.  Apropos to the cloak, the skills system was bloody AWFUL for too many classes (horrible skill selection, no skill points).  There was always a scaling problem with bonuses, as noted;  at higher and higher levels they became much less useful.  It took a while to realize that a weapon's most important aspect was its crits, because crits were insane.  (SO insane that they hadda be nerfed a LOT by a negating defense.)

 

Just went through the first few sections of the PF2 SRD, including char creation.  I agree that it feels like it's designed for computer use.  The cross referencing, the terminology reliance...it's easier to build most Hero characters, with only a little guidance.  I looked at the Fighter...there are 74 fighter feats available.  74!!!!!!!  You get one every other level.  You get a skill feat every other level.  Ancestry and general feats too.  Bloody crazy!  And does all of this belong in the core rules?  It feels like they decided they'd combine materials from 1E core rules and 20-odd supplements, convert it to a consistent mechanic, and call that all core.  

I'll grant that Hero suffers from this complaint as well...which is an argument for the slightly slimmer Champions Complete, for supers play.  But the core language is easier, I'd say, than PF2's.  And that's saying something.  PF2 doesn't remind me of Hero, so much...as GURPS.  High-point character creation in GURPS is a MAJOR PITA.