Pathfinder 2E Taking20 -"I'm Quitting Pathfinder 2e Because of This Issue"

[Zardnaar]

Yeah, there is (unsurprisingly) some indignation about this video on the PF2 messageboards at Paizo. I don't completely disagree with his assessment. There is little wiggle room for suboptimization of every character action in the Age of Ashes Adventure Path (which he and I both have GMed). It's deadly (my group averaged 3 TPKs in around 9 sessions). It was so frustrating my group rage quit upon completing the second book in the AP. (I've documented our experiences in other threads here.)
My personal opinion is that Age of Ashes was a bad way to kick off PF2. Based on what I ran, what I've read from others, and Taking20's video, I have to describe it as a catastrophic failure of design to promote a new system, akin to the terrible 4E inaugural adventure "Keep on the Shadowfell" - which I believe is a contributing factor to the lack of success seen by 4E.
Had PF2 launched with a solid starting adventure and easy entry point, like the 5e Starter Set (and by all reports the 1.5 years too late Beginner Box for PF2), we'd likely be having a different conversation. Can it get back those who tried a "real campaign" with it, only to give up because of poor adventure design?
PF2 completely stumbled out of the gate with a bad Adventure Path. Then Paizo apologized for the theme of their most recent Adventure Path (which my group wouldn't play even when the issues with Age of Ashes became apparent). In the past month, they've found the need to print errata'ed 600+ page rulebooks and release affordable paperback editions. Now a pretty major voice on YouTube (who previously championed their system) - at least in the small circle of gaming content - has lambasted the system.
Pathfinder 2 is in trouble. Their upcoming AP has to knock it out of the park, or I don't know if PF2 will have enough interest to warrant discussing this time next year.

PF2 doesn't seem super popular. I wasn't expecting it to dethrone 5E but even with Pathfinder players it seems online more ate sticking with 1E.

 

[Zaukrie]

Wouldn't he have that issue with every RPG.....if all he cares about is optimization? I have been playing since the 70s, and I've never once thought about optimizing a PC. Not. One. Time.

 

[Retreater]

PF2 doesn't seem super popular. I wasn't expecting it to dethrone 5E but even with Pathfinder players it seems online more ate sticking with 1E.

I know only my experiences. We initially loved the options and character creation method - which I still think is leagues better than anything D&D has made. We had an awful time in the playtest, but after trying a short Pathfinder Society adventure with the full rules, decided to give it a real go.
We had some good sessions early on with Age of Ashes. Then the pandemic hit. Due to tech issues, we could only play online with Roll20. We also lost a few of our players. The AP wasn't on Roll20, so I had to put in a lot of extra work to get it automated. Further add to the drama about moving to voice communication from in-person with groups of people who are loud, like to talk over each other, and you can see that coming up with good teamwork would prove impossible.
We had an early TPK in Book 1. Then moved a little further. Then another TPK. And another. We just couldn't get the group working together, and we were having a pretty miserable time. So I just backed away from the group and said I wasn't going to run anymore. And that was that. PF2 was an experiment that ended.
Of the groups I know personally, nobody has stuck with PF2 for more than a few sessions. They are sticking with PF1, going to 5e, or trying something very different (Call of Cthulhu).
All of us going through the pandemic around the world, trying to navigate VTTs, etc. I don't think this is a time for PF2 to really excel. I doubt many crunchy games really are, especially new ones that are better taught to fresh minds in person. So Paizo has a lot going against them right now.

 

[Retreater]

Wouldn't he have that issue with every RPG.....if all he cares about is optimization? I have been playing since the 70s, and I've never once thought about optimizing a PC. Not. One. Time.

I do. I won't play a suboptimal character. I'd rather see them die and make another character.
I won't bring in an 11 Intelligence wizard because I think it would be funny. My wizard is going to be effective. I'm going to blast stuff, provide battlefield control, and bring useful utility magic to save the skin of my party.
I won't bring in a fighter who uses a sap exclusively because I won't be able to defend the party against the terrible foes who will kill them.
I won't play a cleric who can't heal effectively because he has low Wisdom. I won't play a bard who refuses to grant buffs to the party.
Players who bring in characters who stink for their own entertainment are selfish, and I don't want to sit at a table with them.
Now there is a big gray area between "my character is ineffective" and "my character is optimized to the point of being cheesy." I'm not going to fuss about 1 point of damage or something like that. But your character needs to be able to fulfill their role in the party.
Especially in PF2. There is no wiggle room in the math. If you don't have the required AC for the level, you're going to be a liability for the party.

 

[Benjamin Olson]

I've seen the video but don't really know Pathfinder 2e well enough to add much, except to say that a key part of his argument gets buried in deep in the video, namely that 5e has the same problems, it's just that PF2 adds a lot of complexity to get to what feels like the same place to him.

I'll also add that he is a big 5e D&D youtuber who approaches his channel very much as an important income stream and although he goes on at the beginning about all his good will for Paizo, he nevertheless has a bias towards sticking to the game system where the videos generate the most views. He may have frustrations with the system from it just not helping to promote his channel as much as he would like.

Some of us might be on a written forum specifically because we can't access videos right now....

I know it's irritating to have a thread that sounds intriguing, perhaps right up your alley, but that you can't meaningfully participate in due to technical limitations or time commitments, but there are other threads to participate in in the forum if the media component makes this one not your cup of tea at the moment.

I think video discussion threads fulfill a need created by the fact that youtube video comments are a vile hellscape of non-conversation usually heavily dominated by uninformed yahoos.

 

[Zaukrie]

I do. I won't play a suboptimal character. I'd rather see them die and make another character.
I won't bring in an 11 Intelligence wizard because I think it would be funny. My wizard is going to be effective. I'm going to blast stuff, provide battlefield control, and bring useful utility magic to save the skin of my party.
I won't bring in a fighter who uses a sap exclusively because I won't be able to defend the party against the terrible foes who will kill them.
I won't play a cleric who can't heal effectively because he has low Wisdom. I won't play a bard who refuses to grant buffs to the party.
Players who bring in characters who stink for their own entertainment are selfish, and I don't want to sit at a table with them.
Now there is a big gray area between "my character is ineffective" and "my character is optimized to the point of being cheesy." I'm not going to fuss about 1 point of damage or something like that. But your character needs to be able to fulfill their role in the party.
Especially in PF2. There is no wiggle room in the math. If you don't have the required AC for the level, you're going to be a liability for the party.

Never mind......I will just delete my reply and move on.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yeah, there is (unsurprisingly) some indignation about this video on the PF2 messageboards at Paizo. I don't completely disagree with his assessment. There is little wiggle room for suboptimization of every character action in the Age of Ashes Adventure Path (which he and I both have GMed). It's deadly (my group averaged 3 TPKs in around 9 sessions). It was so frustrating my group rage quit upon completing the second book in the AP. (I've documented our experiences in other threads here.)
My personal opinion is that Age of Ashes was a bad way to kick off PF2. Based on what I ran, what I've read from others, and Taking20's video, I have to describe it as a catastrophic failure of design to promote a new system, akin to the terrible 4E inaugural adventure "Keep on the Shadowfell" - which I believe is a contributing factor to the lack of success seen by 4E.
Had PF2 launched with a solid starting adventure and easy entry point, like the 5e Starter Set (and by all reports the 1.5 years too late Beginner Box for PF2), we'd likely be having a different conversation. Can it get back those who tried a "real campaign" with it, only to give up because of poor adventure design?
PF2 completely stumbled out of the gate with a bad Adventure Path. Then Paizo apologized for the theme of their most recent Adventure Path (which my group wouldn't play even when the issues with Age of Ashes became apparent). In the past month, they've found the need to print errata'ed 600+ page rulebooks and release affordable paperback editions. Now a pretty major voice on YouTube (who previously championed their system) - at least in the small circle of gaming content - has lambasted the system.
Pathfinder 2 is in trouble. Their upcoming AP has to knock it out of the park, or I don't know if PF2 will have enough interest to warrant discussing this time next year.

I dunno, this seems pretty "The sky is falling" sort of stuff. 5E had its problems coming out, like a godawful first adventure book, with the next book being the wrap up of that. It was even worse, since new content was so spaced out that there was limited good player stuff incoming: XGtE was literally over 3 years after the initial release.

I think this one of those "the internet is not real life" sort of things.

PF2 doesn't seem super popular. I wasn't expecting it to dethrone 5E but even with Pathfinder players it seems online more ate sticking with 1E.

Has that actually been born out in sales? It seems like it's doing just fine there, at least from the most recent charts we have (which were from the Spring).

 

[Zardnaar]

I dunno, this seems pretty "The sky is falling" sort of stuff. 5E had its problems coming out, like a godawful first adventure book, with the next book being the wrap up of that. It was even worse, since new content was so spaced out that there was limited good player stuff incoming: XGtE was literally over 3 years after the initial release.

I think this one of those "the internet is not real life" sort of things.



Has that actually been born out in sales? It seems like it's doing just fine there, at least from the most recent charts we have (which were from the Spring).

Charts don't give sales figuees and even if they did it doesn't reveal who bought it didn't like it stopped playing.

It would reveal downward or upward trends though and we don't have access to that one way or another.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Charts don't give sales figuees and even if they did it doesn't reveal who bought it didn't like it stopped playing.

It would reveal downward or upward trends though and we don't have access to that one way or another.

True, but are far more substantive than anecdotal stuff. I mean, I'm literally a dude who just recently came over to PF2 after tiring of 5E. We can do this sort of thing all day, which is why I don't see the point in this. People were doing this all the time after 5E came out, too, and I just think it's sort of wishcasting a certain point of view more than anything else.

 

[Zardnaar]

True, but are far more substantive than anecdotal stuff. I mean, I'm literally a dude who just recently came over to PF2 after tiring of 5E. We can do this sort of thing all day, which is why I don't see the point in this. People were doing this all the time after 5E came out, too, and I just think it's sort of wishcasting a certain point of view more than anything else.

That's why I said online. It's a bigger sample size than say polling.

5E quickly displaced 4E online, PF2 hasn't. If it was super popular it would.

So yeah not a great look imho.