Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

MerricB · Jun 15, 2024

Although PF2 may define exploration and role-playing better, if combat takes too long, you don't have enough time for them.

I can't speak to how long PF2 combat takes; certainly in our short time with AV, I don't think it took that long. I can speak to how long 4E combat took, and that was a monster. About every fight was an hour to resolve. (At level 30, which I ran two campaigns to... still about an hour or so - contrary to some experiences).

And it just killed the pacing. Keep on the Shadowfell is an adventure where the dungeon component drags because of how long combat takes. I think it would have been much better received in 5E! Yes, you do want some combats (boss battles) lasting an hour or more, but a random set of five kobolds shouldn't take an hour to resolve, but that's how 4E worked.

When it takes so long to resolve a single combat, you need to structure the game to be more roleplaying/exploration and less combat or the pacing suffers terribly. But, against that, combat is fun. And the switch from "lots of combat" to "only a few key combats" from 3E to 4E wasn't a switch a lot of groups enjoyed.

Cheers,
Merric

MerricB · Jun 15, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
I'm not going to tell people they're wrong here, but I have to note that PF2e combats felt a lot faster to me than D&D 3.5 ones.

3.5E was incredibly dependent on level. Low level went fast, high level went very slow. Very very slow.

4E evened that out a lot more, but the default was "slow", alas. Still ran high-level combats a LOT more quickly than 3E.

PF2 may be a bit more fiddly than 3.5E (there are a lot of things going on, esp. with conditions and action selection), but I didn't think it was that slow. But for newer players, especially at low levels, it probably is slower.

Cheers,
Merric

Thomas Shey · Jun 15, 2024

Retreater said:
Regularly comes up as a bottom tier class in rankings online.

I've noted before some people have ridiculously sharp-edged definitions of what's "good". By some standards it might not be as good as some other classes, but that doesn't mean its "bad" in any but a particularly picky sense, and like I said, having played one all the way up to 20th level, I'm pretty confident in saying that.

Retreater said:
Its primary interesting ability is tied to reactions, which is in demand for shield block, attack of opportunity, and others.

Not every Champions uses a shield heavily, and if you're using AoOs every round, the opposition is pretty dumb. I even had a reach weapon and went through multiple flights not using an AoO.

Retreater said:
Not to mention that you have to be perfectly placed to use it, and if you're fighting something larger than Large sized you're probably too far away from your ally to help.

To a point. But that's only true if they're fighting a different PC, or the PC is flanking. If you're fighting with a team member it works fine, and if they attack you instead? That's a win given you probably have the best AC in the group.

Retreater said:
You have the best defense, but your damage output stinks. There's no reason for an enemy to ever target you. You need an ability like 4E's marking to get any use out of your defensive abilities.

"Your damage output stinks" is such a vast overstatement I don't even know what to say about it.

Retreater said:
You're a worse fighter by almost every metric.

Still not buying it.

Thomas Shey · Jun 15, 2024

MerricB said:
Although PF2 may define exploration and role-playing better, if combat takes too long, you don't have enough time for them.

The problem is that there's no reason they should take too long except for decision paralysis. The PF2e fights I saw were rarely even as long as any D&D 3.5 fights I saw.

MerricB said:
I can't speak to how long PF2 combat takes; certainly in our short time with AV, I don't think it took that long. I can speak to how long 4E combat took, and that was a monster. About every fight was an hour to resolve. (At level 30, which I ran two campaigns to... still about an hour or so - contrary to some experiences).

4e suffered from the fact a lot of special abilities involved moving opponents in tactically convenient ways, and there were a lot of encounter and daily powers every class had to decide when and where to use. There's relatively little of that in PF2e (most special abilities either allow you to play games with the action economy or impose conditions) so the handling isn't as high. There are a few special abilities that are the equivalent of dailies or encounters, but they're often situational enough that when the situation occurs, you just take them.

Thomas Shey · Jun 15, 2024

MerricB said:
3.5E was incredibly dependent on level. Low level went fast, high level went very slow. Very very slow.

4E evened that out a lot more, but the default was "slow", alas. Still ran high-level combats a LOT more quickly than 3E.

PF2 may be a bit more fiddly than 3.5E (there are a lot of things going on, esp. with conditions and action selection), but I didn't think it was that slow. But for newer players, especially at low levels, it probably is slower.

As long as they learn to engage with the actions system, hard to see how. Low level characters (outside spellcasters, and even some of them) just don't have that many options.

I mean, a bottom end fighter can, 90% of the time, spend two actions making attacks and one bracing their shield. Maybe he uses one or two of those to move.

MuhVerisimilitude · Jun 15, 2024

I think PF2 benefits greatly from having a few players at the table being well read as far as the rules are concerned. This means that the game will never be stuck for too long if some kind of rules oddity appears (which does from time to time)

My group for example tries to be very fair in terms of rules. If there is some kind of rules mistake at the table, no matter if it benefits the GM or the PCs, if it is found out it will be pointed out.

thullgrim · Jun 15, 2024

As much as I struggled with PF2 I’m still tempted to keep banging my head against that wall in case it’s me. I gel on to my books and every time I’m in the FLGS I page through the remaster.

My prep time constraints may change this fall. If there do I’ll be looking for something I can run out of the box and at least there are APs available and ready to go on Foundry. The implement for Abomination Vaults was fantastic even if giant dungeon crawls aren’t really my thing.

Is Outlaws of Alkenstar any good?

Velderan · Jun 15, 2024

thullgrim said:
As much as I struggled with PF2 I’m still tempted to keep banging my head against that wall in case it’s me. I gel on to my books and every time I’m in the FLGS I page through the remaster.

My prep time constraints may change this fall. If there do I’ll be looking for something I can run out of the box and at least there are APs available and ready to go on Foundry. The implement for Abomination Vaults was fantastic even if giant dungeon crawls aren’t really my thing.

Is Outlaws of Alkenstar any good?

I was wondering the same thing, since I bought the Humble Bundle that had the Foundry modules. I haven't heard much of anything about the AP itself, but since the ruleset had been out a couple years by the time it was released I'm guessing it doesn't have some of the balancing problems I've heard early APs had.

Retreater · Jun 16, 2024

Thomas Shey said:
"Your damage output stinks" is such a vast overstatement I don't even know what to say about it.

You don't have the accuracy of the fighter. You don't deal the extra damage of the rogue, barbarian, ranger, or thaumaturge.
Your damage output is roughly equal to the cleric, right? But even the cleric is a better target because she has spells and a lower defense.
Why would any enemy stay and fight a champion? It has the highest defense while being one the lowest threats in the game.
Its feats also stink - because of alignment restrictions - you can only take the ones that match your alignment. (At least currently since Players Core 2 isn't out yet.)

grankless · Jun 16, 2024

Retreater said:
You don't have the accuracy of the fighter. You don't deal the extra damage of the rogue, barbarian, ranger, or thaumaturge.
Your damage output is roughly equal to the cleric, right? But even the cleric is a better target because she has spells and a lower defense.
Why would any enemy stay and fight a champion? It has the highest defense while being one the lowest threats in the game.
Its feats also stink - because of alignment restrictions - you can only take the ones that match your alignment. (At least currently since Players Core 2 isn't out yet.)

Champion is easily one of the best three classes in the game. The reaction massively reduces incoming damage to your allies, which enemies will recognize they are being punished for not attacking you and thus attack you. It's a defender class, not a striker. If the defensive powerhouse class had the same offensive capabilities as a rogue or fgighter, something would be very wrong.

Stop gauging the entire quality of a class based on how fast it kills an enemy. This isn't 1e.

Pathfinder 2E I think I am giving up on PF2ER

MerricB

Eternal Optimist

MerricB

Eternal Optimist

Thomas Shey

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

Thomas Shey

Legend

MuhVerisimilitude

Hero

thullgrim

Hero

Velderan

Hero

Retreater

Legend

grankless

she/her

Similar Threads

Voidrunner's Codex