Games that lack GM support are harder for beginner GMs. And as such those various 'you have two stats' one-page games are usually terrible choices for new GMs (but can be good for new players, if they're in a genre the player knows well. But when you've got two sides of A4, you don't have room to give the sort of support newer GMs need.) But whether they're rules heavy or rules light doesn't really bear into how much GM support they're going to have outside of that design constraint - Escape From Dino Island, for example, is an absolute dream for a beginner GM, while only being about 32 pages (and I think most of that's tables to pick from rather than rules). Meanwhile, a game that's based off of it, Slaughter Party, would be pretty bad for a newer GM. The two games are about as rules-light as each other, but there's not nearly as much GM support in Slaughter Party compared to Escape from Dino Island. Slaughter Party assumes you're used to running - and specifically running PbtA style stuff. Dino Island doesn't, and not only walks you through how to run it, but gives an idea of what you might want to prep if you're running the more improv-heavy style that PbtA tend to default to. And, ok, I've run before, so I wasn't literally a first time GM when I ran it recently, but the last thing I ran was around 15 years ago, and was once, so that doesn't count.
I have to be devil's advocate here. I started with rules light systems, had no problems learning them, or GMing them. I think it's more difficult to come from rules over rulings than it is to just start with rulings over rules play styles. Just what I think.
I love that you addressed your thoughts on this game being ran solo. I would love to hear your thoughts on all games that you do on the sages library from a solo perspective even if you haven’t tried. Exactly like you did with this video. Bravo Trevor! Always look forward to everything that you put out there.
You asked a really interesting question there. See, I never approached 2e from the "everything is forbidden unless there is a rule for it" perspective. My approach has been, "everything is allowed. Plus, the 3 action economy + 4 degrees of success gives me additional dials to come up with a fair mechanic on the spot. And I can always look up the official rules later on." So you kinda stymied me for a bit with your question - "If you are going to be issuing rulings, then why are you running this system?" I had to think about it. I think the answers is that about 90% of the system just works for me. Both before and during the game, I can focus my energy on all of the juicy narrative bits while offloading game balance and encounter design to the game designers.
My problem I’ve had is the culture of pf2e. Since so many people flocked from 5e to it because of how well structured the rules were. I find most people want rules over rulings. I talked with a Paizo dev about this exact issue while discussing the concept of failing forward and he was using climbing a wall as an example saying if they fail a roll you can do this or that. And I mentioned how I’ve had players who got mad at me for trying to fail foreword with a climb check because “The rules say if I fail I just don’t move.” The player wouldn’t let me me make a ruling that was outside of the rules. He legit said “If we aren’t going to o,any by the rules why are we even playing pf2e.” The dev I was talking to said this sounded like a player issue. But I’ve experienced this at every table I’ve sat at as either a GM or player. Of course this is a, your mileage may vary, type of situation. But I think he makes a great point here. This system is built not just around rules, but outcomes too, and if you’re going to ignore those, why are you using it? And it’s honestly where I am right now because, well 2 years later I just feel stifled and constrained by the system. Not freed and empowered by it.
I'm also highly critical of the importance of game balance when it's used to create a sense of fairness for it's own sake, as that does not fit building verisimilitude within the world. HOWEVER, one of the biggest things I appreciate about 2e's commitment to balance is the level of reliable dramatic tuning it has for GMs to run and build encounters suitable to the tone and level of threat they actually are intending for a given encounter or location. I can think of no other game that even comes close to the reliability of that design, which can be very frustrating, especially for campaign styles based on heroic combat. Certainly, not everything needs to be based on the PCs as the world should feel like it exists outside of the party, but conversely the threat posed by something should be properly fitting to the expectations of what that thing actually is, which this game is shockingly excellent at imo.
Agreed 100% with absolutely everything you’ve said here! Especially about balance for the sake of itself heavily limiting worldbuilding and verisimilitude.
You have a very balanced view of the game and rules. I've been playing Pathfinder 2e since it came out and I never once consulted the encounter balance formula. I agree, sometimes players just have to run. There is a "Rule" somewhere in that large book that states that any PC can attempt to try anything. The difference is that those with Proficiency will have better odds of success. Obviously that doesn't include casting spells but other things like your 1st Barbarian attempting to pick a lock or disable a trap...anything is possible if you roll well enough. Lastly, it is not obvious at first but the rules are modular. You can actually unplug entire groups of rules from the core without breaking the game. The Games Master's Guide gives some examples of this. For example; I play a Grim/Dark magic light campaign setting with low hit points, low proficiencies and a few other things. All inspired by the GM Guide's variant rules section.
Agreed that PF2E functions rather well when removing whole chunks of rules/systems and wedging your own in. I also run a low-fantasy/low-Magic rather ‘grimdark’ game with it (basically Warhammer Fantasy with a thin coat of paint), and it just kinda… gels right along. If I tried to do the same with 5E, I’d basically have to rework the entire game from the ground up.
As a mainly solo player, I really appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the soloability of Pathfinder. I hope you do the same for every game in the Sage's Library from now on.
Balance within the game means that all characters will be viable, generally speaking. Players can choose to play the character they want. The math for generating encounters is made to be simple. Pathfinder 2e is easier on the GM than 5e from my perspective. What are your thoughts on the cypher system?
I find when I play on roll20 or foundry I'm often learning the VTT instead of learning the game. I like owlbear rodeo because it's so so minimal so we can focus on the game
I feel like you over emphasis the "Rules over Rulings" bit. As a GM for PF2e I feel the system really is designed to give the GM tools to MAKE rulings. The Standard DC by Level Table, the DC by Proficiency Table, and Adjusting DCs Table are super handy for improving checks and DCs. There is also the examples given for each skill for what an Expert or Master proficiency looks like. All of that plus Rule Zero "If you dont like it, throw it out" really makes me feel like PF2e isnt trying to be restrictive, people just project that onto the game.
The Beginner's Box could be run solo. It is the BEST Beginner's Box I have ever purchased. It keeps the rules simple and is easy to pick up and run. I could see running the Beginner's Box rules for a long solo campaign. As you said, the main rules set is deep and would slow down solo play immensely.
Great video. I think the three action economy is a great way to give agency to players, and I think the detailed character creation process in pathfinder is actually really helpful for the "creatively challenged". Having said that it is a little intimidating to run; all the rules are hard to understand as a GM starting off. I do appreciate that they make it all available free online. Would love to see a review of Mörk Borg or Maze Rats. Keep it up!
As a contrast to the "Rules Over Rulings" style, please do a first impressions video of Shadowdark! I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Also, I'd love to hear your views on Against the Darkmaster, now (?) that you've had some time to look at it.
I am seconding Shadowdark! The quickstart rules are free on drivethrurpg and are easy to print out as a booklet. I think this game would work great as a sandbox hexcrawl game with an emphasis on dungeons. It's such a quick and intuitive system. I think it's right up Trevor's alley.
The Game Master's Guide actually has some basic rules about doing hexcrawls, but definitely leaves out how to handle an encounter difficulty. The best approach I've seen in that regard is to either a) always base on the average party level or b) pick an "expected" level for the hex; then base the encounter (and selected encounter difficulty) around that number
I recently switched from 5e to Pathfinder 2e (months before the OGL saga) and currently am running a solo Pf2e game with 4 characters (I've always liked a party of adventurers instead of a single hero PC). I was hopeful you'd start running a Pf2e campaign in your channel. Oh well, one could only hope 😁
If there is a balanced and well playtested rule, it's easy to forgo it. If there is no rule, it's not so easy to create a good ruling on the fly. That's why people play heavy-rules system, even if they might need to wave off some rules in particular situations.
Definitely a fair review there! My 5e group swapped over and I feel a lot of the same constraints you bring up compared to when we do short OSR adventures. The rules and skills for EVERYTHING seems to suck the creativity out of players who normally are all about trying gonzo ideas. The DM has tried repeatedly to encourage us to try random stuff, but the extremely tight encounter design feels very limiting to always being on the verge of a TPK if we dont play optimally. This isn't a mark against it for those that want a well balanced combat game though, because it certainly excels!
100% align with your sentiments on PF2E, but you, and Seth Skorkowsky are partially responsible for that! I missed out on 3rd, 3.5, and 4th edition D&D, but jumped back in with 5th, and it was a great campaign, but I have long wanted to return to my BX roots. I did so in a way via DCC for a spell. Played some CoC, got my feet wet with Conan 2D20, ran a 10 Candles game, then hacked my own creation with a heavy dose of Ironsworn, Traveler, character creation, and attributes as resources. I have been using my system for months now. Just enjoying my low prep, oracle consulting GM lifestyle these days :)) Thank you for the great videos, and inspiration!
An absolutely delightful overview of your thoughts on the system. Clearly stating your biases before touching On Any Given topic helped me to get a more well-rounded understanding of your thought process. When I first saw rules for every little thing I was initially daunted, and wasn't having a lot of fun trying to look them up and Implement them as I was playing. Then I watched an interview with one of the creators of the the game Mark Seifter who said they included all of those rules to give people something to fall back on but that they didn't expect people to follow every single rule. He pointed to the very first page of the core rule book where it states any rule can be thrown out or changed in order for your group to have the most fun possible. After seeing that green light from the designers I have been a lot more fast and loose with social encounter rules and traversal rules that I found cumbersome and have been having a lot more fun. In 5th edition I felt like the scolding parent who constantly had to tell my players no you can't do that and make a rule for a situation, and in Pathfinder I feel like the cool Uncle who throws away rules that get in the way of player fun. I found this has fostered a much warmer relationship between the players and myself. :)
To be honest I don't get when people say PF2e isn't RP oriented. It will aways depend on your table. I've had whole 3h+ sessions withouth any combats, only with exploration and social encounters. And its great that the game have rules for these things. It is more robust for combat, but you can totally play a less battle oriented campaing. I've been running Strength of Thousands and it is a very RP heavy adventure, and it works great with the system. To be honest PF2e is the best high-fantasy RPG on the market right now. Also it's extremely easy to make encounters on the fly once you understand the difficult system. If 3 level 2 monster is a moderate combat, then any 3 level 2 monsters will be a moderate encounter!
Thanks for this. I picked up the book a few years ago for cheap as part of a Humble Bundle deal, but I've never been able to get past page 20 or so. Now I don't have to. I've never been a fan of the Pathfinder art style, either, so I feel you on that.
Hey Trevor! I am so glad you gave a look at this game, I have been a long time fan of Pathfinder and switched to 2e soon after it released. I love how you have such a robust library of systems tht you explore and it has really helped open up my world to the many games that exist and solo gaming as a whole! I had to write this though, because I love discourse, and tell you that I do believe you leaned a little too heavy into the belief that class=restriction and not class=opportunity. In fact, I have created so many characters through the robust archetype system that specifically breaks free from their original class or transforms it into something different entirely. From a sorcerer in full plate who uses magic to buff their hits and mace strikes to a cleric haunted by the ghost of his wife as a summoner, I do think that assessment is too shaded by bias. Also, the narrative possibilities in Pf2e are really expansive and often in my own GMing adventures we have entire sessions where we just talk to NPCs due to the robust charisma skills. The GM is able to really run within the framework, which is the way the rules are to be used. Like a framework or prompt like Mythic. And most importantly, there are many rules in the game that help the GM to ENCOURAGE breaking away from what players specifically do for their class. It is no different from savage worlds not giving huge boosts to players without the requisite skills. Again love your videos and opinions but really wanted to voice that just seeing a game that has a history in dnd and not seeing all the ways it COMPLETELY departs from it is like saying savage worlds and Yahtzee are the same because they both use six-sided dice. Keep it rolling man!
I share your 'Old Man Yelling at Clouds!' rant LOL I'm not interested in playing a computer game version of my beloved tabletop roleplaying games! In-person please, whenever possible.
I play with my brothers over discord and we do pencil, paper, theater of the mind, and it's pretty close to irl ttrpg. When I need it for prep, I just ask for them to send a pic of their current character sheet
This was a very intriguing video. You laid your points out very clearly and while I do like PF2E I understand your criticisms of it its really a preference thing honestly. I hope you have a good day Trevor :)
Our group pays Pathfinder much more like the expansions for Five Parsecs. As you mentioned, if there is something we want to do but don't have the particular skill, we collectively come up with a difficulty level that allows a chance to be successful.
I haven't started playing Pathfinder 2e at all, but I've been checking out its mechanics and looking at tools online, and the encounter building mechanics, including the way that there is more information on how to tool an encounter upwards or downwards in difficulty is interesting. Balance for the sake of balance can inadvertently make combat less interesting, but the ability for the GM to predict ahead of time that a particular encounter will be easy/quick versus extreme, I can see a benefit for when the GM wants to plan ahead and ratchet the intensity upwards or downwards as part of the adventure arc. For unpredictability's sake, a creative GM could always roll for how intense an encounter will be
Firstly, I love the jacket. Secondly, thanks so much for an honest admission of your likes and filters and an honest review of PF2e. I really appreciate your point of view.
Having run Pathfinder second edition solo with one character it isn't as complicated as you might sink it is. With the rules being the way they are it actually kind of makes it easier than you might think. On the other hand I would be curious if you read the game mastery guide and looked at their optional rules and how they addressed some of the things you talked about. Especially the stuff about rules over the game table play. Most of the times when I've game mastered it or played the game Master's will allow you to do it just about anything it's just the people that have the feet are guaranteed to be able to do it the way the defeat reads it to be.
@@robkeeley1570 if I run a party of four I generally use mythic to e! If I'm doing a single character I will usually dual class and then run a modified version of how Scarlet heroes does combat. Mostly it is about just making sure I understand the characters, and have a good idea of the basics of the world before I get started. Since it's a sandbox game it's just basically coming up with my creation of the world beforehand.
I like the idea of having an inherently balanced robust rules system so the game can be balanced by default and occasionally break that with my rulings, while 5e is unbalanced by default and I have to fix it with my rulings.
For Westmarches Style: Using the official Variant "Proficiency without Level" would make the math a bit more loose. Alternatively you can adjust the level of the creature on the fly by adding/subtracting to the proficiency to bring their checks in the range of the PCs. Then its more about the skill profile and the abilities of the monster (can it fly etc. has it invisibility etc)
Westmarches/Hexploration style games work just fine, in fact you run them similarly to how you'd do them in 5e: you create zones for a specific level and don't throw in extremely difficult encounters, allowing players to explore above their level. You've got a level range of 9 to work with (-4 < APL < +4). Occasionally you throw in high level encounters in low level areas as quests, which have been handled by more experienced adventurers previously. Also won't hurt immersion: a village of level 0 farmers won't be established in the depths of the Abyss and even in real life, it becomes harder to survive the further you venture from civilization.
I have been trying to play through PF2E solo and your points are spot on. I love the game, and I'm using the solo play to also better understand it for running for an upcoming group campaign, but PF2E really seems to have a focus on teamwork, which then makes it feel very much like, when running just 1 PC, that you do end up doing a lot more of that swinging three times even though you shouldn't because you don't have other PCs to manuver with to get flanking, or to aid, or most of the other things PF2E veterans suggest using your third action for.
A very interesting point about Hexploration types of games and yes, PF2e needs to limit a bit the randomization to not screw over the party. Funnily enough, Paizo has recently released a 2nd edition version of Kingmaker which one such game. It has level-based random tables for every region and it could be worth a check if interested. I've not delved too deep into it, because I'm supposed to be playing the campaign and I do not want to spoil myself, but I do wonder how many off-level creatures are on those tables.
I have read the rules but I haven't had a chance to actually try out Pathfinder 2e, but it does appeal to me (I love tactical combat and dungeon crawls). There are rules and options for everything, whether on the player or on the GM side, so everyone has tools and components to build some really cool stuff. It's like being a kid with tons of legos. But as a solo player, it is daunting to try to run it as intended, I would probably go more for Pathfinder for Savage Worlds since it's easier to run on the fly.
I agree with some of your points and I can understand that it may not be your cup of tea. However, I would say "everything is forbidden unless there is a rule for it" isn't a pathfinder thing. In fact, I would argue the opposite. There are a lot of rules support to customizing your own game such as rules to creating your own subsystems, adjusting encounters, etc. It's not a rules vs ruling thing. A lot of its rules provide the framework so that rulings are made easier.
While I mostly agree with you on everything. I think randomness works well in pf2e and Paizo ever supports this with their hex crawl rules. They literally say not to curate encounters if you don’t want to, because having battles you can win and needing to flee is part of hex crawls. Otherwise, I agree 100% with you. After playing pf2e for 2 years, I just don’t think it’s the system for me because of how rules dense and stifling it is.
This was a great video. I enjoy PF2, but I cannot ever imagine playing it solo. And I agree with you on Foundry being a necessary evil. I'd much rather play it at a table.
Pathfinder has always interested me. It might be because it comes with its own, defined game world and lots of fluff text about it. This then lets me really dive into the game world and maybe come up with new stories. But I must agree, the rules can be a bit too crunchy with many boons and banes to add to your roll. Maybe I'll look into Pathfinder for Savage Worlds but combine it with the world from second edition. I totally agree with "books over PDF". I bought quite some PDFs but it is always an issue to read them on my tablet. I constantly have to adjust the zoom level, when the text is in two columns and this interrupts my flow of reading. For quick look ups, sure! But actually reading things, nah, I prefer the physical book! Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on "The dark eye"!
I can see where you are going with the "not for a west marches / sandbox style of game" but I'm not sure about this since the biggest and maybe most famous adventure path of pathfinder is Kingmaker which is actually a sandbox game in itself...
Would definitely be interested in that game balance video, as someone who generally agrees that game balance is over-rated but can't exactly articulate why.
Pathfinder could be so good if they just simplified the individual mechanics a little. I was remember being interested in stealth, and by chance a video I was watching of Pathfinder guys got asked in the chat about how stealth skill worked. Their rather evasive answer was "Once you wrap your head around it, Pathfinder stealth skill is great and flexible." So I looked up the rule and--not being very familiar with the system in general--couldn't make heads or tails of the stealth mechanics. Oh well.
My personal peeve with 5e is not that it does not have a rule for everything, but that it is as much vague and in the same time as much rules heavy to create a lot of RAW Vs. RAI situations.
PF2e can easily be run OSR style, which allows the deep tactical combat to combine with randomness and procedural story telling. I am running a campaign precisely like an OSR game and find PF2e works perfectly with minor variant rules. I can leverage the robust and predictable system for combat and dice mechanics, allowing me to focus on story generation and connecting narrative points. The encounter building system is amazing, allowing me to drop creatures on the fly without worrying too much about balance. It doesn't necessarily require the careful precision as you might think. Trevor, I'd be happy to share how easily this can be achieved if you want more information. Cheers! Thanks for the great videos.
I do not particularly like Pathfinder 2E mechanics, too much number crunching for me but i am fond of the adventures paths modules and the Lost Omens sourcebooks. I do love Pathfinder for Savage Worlds though! Great insight as always Mr. Devall!
Trevor, I think PF2 is better playing with 2d10 than 1d20 due to how swingy the d20 is when you have 4 levels of success/failure. Do you think that is a good idea or not worth the trouble?
It’s funny, I think role playing games that try to become war games struggle with the issue of restrictive rules. Oddly enough when I play a war game I don’t mind strict rules but then I don’t expect to get inside the head of my soldier/character/meeple in a war game.
THANKS TREVOR, THANKS! We completely agree on the VTT comment. If I wanted to play Diablo, I would play Diablo. VTTs were great in the COVID era, they can help us with remote friends, but they are not the "thing".
During the OGL crisis, I honestly found it frustrating how much PF2e was being pushed as the 5e alternative. I don't think Pathfinder IS what most frustrated 5e GMs and players are looking for. Anecdotally, I think most are looking for "how can I make it easier to play like Critical Role?" not "How can I add more numbers and video game elements?" 5e developed in a specific play culture that has left the system somewhat at war with itself, but I think Pathfinder sends 5e exiles down the complete opposite path to the one they're actually looking for. I think low prep cinematic games like Savage Worlds or the Cypher System (just eg) are far more aligned with the "hey you can do Critical Role without tons of homework" that 5e folks are actually looking for, in my experience. I suspect a lot of PF newcomers are gonna bounce straight back to 5e if those are presented as the two primary options, as they have been. I just find it a shame 🤷♂️
The problem with game balance, is that it doesn't take player experience into balance! Pathfinder 2E has been around long enough that someone probably has made solo rules for it!
PF2 has been a pretty big disappointment for me as well, Trevor. I strongly agree with almost all of your points, to wit: Paizo became so enthralled with "balance" and wedging every niggling aspect of gameplay into the 3-action system that they treated basic reasoning, logic, and facts like red-headed stepchildren. The system is just too overwrought, overthought, and overdone. The result of forcing all these square pegs into round holes is an uneven system that dilutes the overall enjoyment of the game. In comparison, PF1 - hoary warts and all - still has much more color, gusto, and an edge that PF2 simply doesn't have. I'll give you just one example, out of many, of Paizo's poor choices with PF2: The assigning of what things constitute 1-, 2-, or 3-actions must have been done on a day when the game designers let their kids play with their laptops. Some of the choices are downright laughable, but that's what you'd expect by forcing every piece of minutia into their precious 3-action cage. Here's a particularly ludicrous one: Dropping Prone. In PF2, it costs 1 action. Did you know that Mounting A Horse also costs 1 action? Seriously. Anyone who has ever actually experienced mounting a horse will tell you how profoundly ridiculous it is to even think about equating those two actions. Do you know how many other things in PF2 cost 1 action, ostensibly mirroring the obscenely minimal amount of time, effort, and energy needed to Drop Prone? DOZENS! From Casting a Spell (approximately 15 x-level spells are just one action - not just cantrips!) to Forcing open a door or window with a crowbar to Striding 25 or so feet...to just taking ONE STEP? From Escaping a Grapple to Treating someone medically for being poisoned to...Raising A Shield?! The sheer amount of these poorly-assigned actions is so beyond stupid that it's actually kind of insulting...and honestly, more than a little disgraceful. No one will ever be able to convince me that anyone on the Paizo design team spent more than a handful of minutes whipping up that part of the game. And speaking of Raising A Shield...it's shocking how incredibly biased PF2 is against shield-users! The design team's families must have all suffered grievous harm from roving bands of shield-wielding marauders, because wow...the insane amount of extra time, money, and effort just use a shield that's useless after one or two rounds of combat is simply farcical. I won't go into detail because I could go on for awhile. Suffice to say that you should never, ever play a character who uses a shield in PF2. Trust me, you'll be much happier. In all honestly, if two of my GMs weren't running PF2, I wouldn't touch it again. To that point, one of them is actually rushing us through the AP we're playing so he can ditch the system ASAP, as he's had his fill of it. The other GM is an old-school hack-and-slash guy, so the time and character investment is minimal.
My biggest beef with 3e and derivatives is the ridiculous predetermined character build game that you have to play if you don't want your character to be broken. It's a terrible trap for new players to fall into, and isn't conducive to a character evolving naturally as the campaign story proceeds.
I should clarify. The problem stems from some class abilities stacking, while others don't. The classic example would be the level 5/5 fighter mage in a 10th level party, who gets to choose between being a level 5 fighter or a level 5 mage each round, against 10hd critters. The gestalt style multiclassing of 2e and earlier, although not being as straightforward, worked far far better in actual play.
This is probably the best review and take on PF2 I have ever seen. I'm deeply suspicious of all the "PF2 is the best" advocates and you precisely put your fingers on the points that make me uneasy about this game - including the art style (which I really don't like in PF). The only thing I would add is the character sheet - both in color (which literally makes me feel uneasy in the stomach looking at it - no kidding here) and in printer friendly or whatever other version. I find it confusing and uninspiring to look at at best. I can appreciate PF2 for what it is but just like you I prefer games that are a little more open to hand wave certain situations.
Personally, I find PF one of the worse rpg ever. 2nd, 3rd or 120th edition won't change the hatred i feel towards it. Countless silly feats for a single bonus; math is unbearable for the simplest move; tons of idiotic rules kill atmosphere and pathos... Away from me, PF!
Man it's so refreshing to hear someone acknowledge that rules-lite systems usually make the job of a beginner GM harder, not easier!
Games that lack GM support are harder for beginner GMs. And as such those various 'you have two stats' one-page games are usually terrible choices for new GMs (but can be good for new players, if they're in a genre the player knows well. But when you've got two sides of A4, you don't have room to give the sort of support newer GMs need.)
But whether they're rules heavy or rules light doesn't really bear into how much GM support they're going to have outside of that design constraint - Escape From Dino Island, for example, is an absolute dream for a beginner GM, while only being about 32 pages (and I think most of that's tables to pick from rather than rules). Meanwhile, a game that's based off of it, Slaughter Party, would be pretty bad for a newer GM. The two games are about as rules-light as each other, but there's not nearly as much GM support in Slaughter Party compared to Escape from Dino Island. Slaughter Party assumes you're used to running - and specifically running PbtA style stuff. Dino Island doesn't, and not only walks you through how to run it, but gives an idea of what you might want to prep if you're running the more improv-heavy style that PbtA tend to default to. And, ok, I've run before, so I wasn't literally a first time GM when I ran it recently, but the last thing I ran was around 15 years ago, and was once, so that doesn't count.
couldn't agree more!
Well not just that lacking rules is always worse id say, it’s easier to have rules and chose not to use them then not have that option at all.
@@DarkBunnyLord Exactly!
I have to be devil's advocate here. I started with rules light systems, had no problems learning them, or GMing them. I think it's more difficult to come from rules over rulings than it is to just start with rulings over rules play styles.
Just what I think.
I love that you addressed your thoughts on this game being ran solo. I would love to hear your thoughts on all games that you do on the sages library from a solo perspective even if you haven’t tried. Exactly like you did with this video.
Bravo Trevor! Always look forward to everything that you put out there.
This please
I second this!
You asked a really interesting question there.
See, I never approached 2e from the "everything is forbidden unless there is a rule for it" perspective. My approach has been, "everything is allowed. Plus, the 3 action economy + 4 degrees of success gives me additional dials to come up with a fair mechanic on the spot. And I can always look up the official rules later on."
So you kinda stymied me for a bit with your question - "If you are going to be issuing rulings, then why are you running this system?" I had to think about it.
I think the answers is that about 90% of the system just works for me. Both before and during the game, I can focus my energy on all of the juicy narrative bits while offloading game balance and encounter design to the game designers.
My problem I’ve had is the culture of pf2e. Since so many people flocked from 5e to it because of how well structured the rules were. I find most people want rules over rulings.
I talked with a Paizo dev about this exact issue while discussing the concept of failing forward and he was using climbing a wall as an example saying if they fail a roll you can do this or that. And I mentioned how I’ve had players who got mad at me for trying to fail foreword with a climb check because “The rules say if I fail I just don’t move.” The player wouldn’t let me me make a ruling that was outside of the rules. He legit said “If we aren’t going to o,any by the rules why are we even playing pf2e.”
The dev I was talking to said this sounded like a player issue. But I’ve experienced this at every table I’ve sat at as either a GM or player.
Of course this is a, your mileage may vary, type of situation. But I think he makes a great point here. This system is built not just around rules, but outcomes too, and if you’re going to ignore those, why are you using it? And it’s honestly where I am right now because, well 2 years later I just feel stifled and constrained by the system. Not freed and empowered by it.
I'm also highly critical of the importance of game balance when it's used to create a sense of fairness for it's own sake, as that does not fit building verisimilitude within the world.
HOWEVER, one of the biggest things I appreciate about 2e's commitment to balance is the level of reliable dramatic tuning it has for GMs to run and build encounters suitable to the tone and level of threat they actually are intending for a given encounter or location. I can think of no other game that even comes close to the reliability of that design, which can be very frustrating, especially for campaign styles based on heroic combat.
Certainly, not everything needs to be based on the PCs as the world should feel like it exists outside of the party, but conversely the threat posed by something should be properly fitting to the expectations of what that thing actually is, which this game is shockingly excellent at imo.
Agreed 100% with absolutely everything you’ve said here! Especially about balance for the sake of itself heavily limiting worldbuilding and verisimilitude.
You have a very balanced view of the game and rules. I've been playing Pathfinder 2e since it came out and I never once consulted the encounter balance formula. I agree, sometimes players just have to run.
There is a "Rule" somewhere in that large book that states that any PC can attempt to try anything. The difference is that those with Proficiency will have better odds of success. Obviously that doesn't include casting spells but other things like your 1st Barbarian attempting to pick a lock or disable a trap...anything is possible if you roll well enough.
Lastly, it is not obvious at first but the rules are modular. You can actually unplug entire groups of rules from the core without breaking the game. The Games Master's Guide gives some examples of this. For example; I play a Grim/Dark magic light campaign setting with low hit points, low proficiencies and a few other things. All inspired by the GM Guide's variant rules section.
Agreed that PF2E functions rather well when removing whole chunks of rules/systems and wedging your own in. I also run a low-fantasy/low-Magic rather ‘grimdark’ game with it (basically Warhammer Fantasy with a thin coat of paint), and it just kinda… gels right along.
If I tried to do the same with 5E, I’d basically have to rework the entire game from the ground up.
As a mainly solo player, I really appreciate hearing your thoughts regarding the soloability of Pathfinder. I hope you do the same for every game in the Sage's Library from now on.
Balance within the game means that all characters will be viable, generally speaking. Players can choose to play the character they want. The math for generating encounters is made to be simple. Pathfinder 2e is easier on the GM than 5e from my perspective. What are your thoughts on the cypher system?
Second that on wanting to hear his thoughts on Cypher system!
I find when I play on roll20 or foundry I'm often learning the VTT instead of learning the game. I like owlbear rodeo because it's so so minimal so we can focus on the game
I feel like you over emphasis the "Rules over Rulings" bit.
As a GM for PF2e I feel the system really is designed to give the GM tools to MAKE rulings. The Standard DC by Level Table, the DC by Proficiency Table, and Adjusting DCs Table are super handy for improving checks and DCs. There is also the examples given for each skill for what an Expert or Master proficiency looks like.
All of that plus Rule Zero "If you dont like it, throw it out" really makes me feel like PF2e isnt trying to be restrictive, people just project that onto the game.
The proficiency without level game option opens up the useable level of monster greatly and makes characters feel more grounded.
The Beginner's Box could be run solo. It is the BEST Beginner's Box I have ever purchased. It keeps the rules simple and is easy to pick up and run. I could see running the Beginner's Box rules for a long solo campaign. As you said, the main rules set is deep and would slow down solo play immensely.
Great video. I think the three action economy is a great way to give agency to players, and I think the detailed character creation process in pathfinder is actually really helpful for the "creatively challenged". Having said that it is a little intimidating to run; all the rules are hard to understand as a GM starting off. I do appreciate that they make it all available free online. Would love to see a review of Mörk Borg or Maze Rats. Keep it up!
I’m about that one action per round life. 😂
As a contrast to the "Rules Over Rulings" style, please do a first impressions video of Shadowdark! I'd really like to hear your thoughts. Also, I'd love to hear your views on Against the Darkmaster, now (?) that you've had some time to look at it.
I am seconding Shadowdark! The quickstart rules are free on drivethrurpg and are easy to print out as a booklet. I think this game would work great as a sandbox hexcrawl game with an emphasis on dungeons. It's such a quick and intuitive system. I think it's right up Trevor's alley.
Yay :) Another one. I've started playing delta green since your video on that. It's a great game! Played Pathfinder 2e a while ago, it was okay.
The Game Master's Guide actually has some basic rules about doing hexcrawls, but definitely leaves out how to handle an encounter difficulty. The best approach I've seen in that regard is to either
a) always base on the average party level
or
b) pick an "expected" level for the hex;
then base the encounter (and selected encounter difficulty) around that number
I recently switched from 5e to Pathfinder 2e (months before the OGL saga) and currently am running a solo Pf2e game with 4 characters (I've always liked a party of adventurers instead of a single hero PC). I was hopeful you'd start running a Pf2e campaign in your channel. Oh well, one could only hope 😁
If there is a balanced and well playtested rule, it's easy to forgo it.
If there is no rule, it's not so easy to create a good ruling on the fly.
That's why people play heavy-rules system, even if they might need to wave off some rules in particular situations.
Definitely a fair review there! My 5e group swapped over and I feel a lot of the same constraints you bring up compared to when we do short OSR adventures. The rules and skills for EVERYTHING seems to suck the creativity out of players who normally are all about trying gonzo ideas. The DM has tried repeatedly to encourage us to try random stuff, but the extremely tight encounter design feels very limiting to always being on the verge of a TPK if we dont play optimally. This isn't a mark against it for those that want a well balanced combat game though, because it certainly excels!
100% align with your sentiments on PF2E, but you, and Seth Skorkowsky are partially responsible for that! I missed out on 3rd, 3.5, and 4th edition D&D, but jumped back in with 5th, and it was a great campaign, but I have long wanted to return to my BX roots. I did so in a way via DCC for a spell. Played some CoC, got my feet wet with Conan 2D20, ran a 10 Candles game, then hacked my own creation with a heavy dose of Ironsworn, Traveler, character creation, and attributes as resources. I have been using my system for months now. Just enjoying my low prep, oracle consulting GM lifestyle these days :)) Thank you for the great videos, and inspiration!
An absolutely delightful overview of your thoughts on the system. Clearly stating your biases before touching On Any Given topic helped me to get a more well-rounded understanding of your thought process.
When I first saw rules for every little thing I was initially daunted, and wasn't having a lot of fun trying to look them up and Implement them as I was playing. Then I watched an interview with one of the creators of the the game Mark Seifter who said they included all of those rules to give people something to fall back on but that they didn't expect people to follow every single rule. He pointed to the very first page of the core rule book where it states any rule can be thrown out or changed in order for your group to have the most fun possible. After seeing that green light from the designers I have been a lot more fast and loose with social encounter rules and traversal rules that I found cumbersome and have been having a lot more fun. In 5th edition I felt like the scolding parent who constantly had to tell my players no you can't do that and make a rule for a situation, and in Pathfinder I feel like the cool Uncle who throws away rules that get in the way of player fun. I found this has fostered a much warmer relationship between the players and myself. :)
To be honest I don't get when people say PF2e isn't RP oriented. It will aways depend on your table. I've had whole 3h+ sessions withouth any combats, only with exploration and social encounters. And its great that the game have rules for these things. It is more robust for combat, but you can totally play a less battle oriented campaing.
I've been running Strength of Thousands and it is a very RP heavy adventure, and it works great with the system. To be honest PF2e is the best high-fantasy RPG on the market right now.
Also it's extremely easy to make encounters on the fly once you understand the difficult system. If 3 level 2 monster is a moderate combat, then any 3 level 2 monsters will be a moderate encounter!
I am just now sinking my teeth into PF2 and am so far enjoying it. The fact that the majority of rules are makes it super easy to get into.
Thanks for this. I picked up the book a few years ago for cheap as part of a Humble Bundle deal, but I've never been able to get past page 20 or so. Now I don't have to. I've never been a fan of the Pathfinder art style, either, so I feel you on that.
Hey Trevor! I am so glad you gave a look at this game, I have been a long time fan of Pathfinder and switched to 2e soon after it released. I love how you have such a robust library of systems tht you explore and it has really helped open up my world to the many games that exist and solo gaming as a whole!
I had to write this though, because I love discourse, and tell you that I do believe you leaned a little too heavy into the belief that class=restriction and not class=opportunity. In fact, I have created so many characters through the robust archetype system that specifically breaks free from their original class or transforms it into something different entirely. From a sorcerer in full plate who uses magic to buff their hits and mace strikes to a cleric haunted by the ghost of his wife as a summoner, I do think that assessment is too shaded by bias.
Also, the narrative possibilities in Pf2e are really expansive and often in my own GMing adventures we have entire sessions where we just talk to NPCs due to the robust charisma skills. The GM is able to really run within the framework, which is the way the rules are to be used. Like a framework or prompt like Mythic. And most importantly, there are many rules in the game that help the GM to ENCOURAGE breaking away from what players specifically do for their class. It is no different from savage worlds not giving huge boosts to players without the requisite skills.
Again love your videos and opinions but really wanted to voice that just seeing a game that has a history in dnd and not seeing all the ways it COMPLETELY departs from it is like saying savage worlds and Yahtzee are the same because they both use six-sided dice.
Keep it rolling man!
Outstanding review, well done.
I share your 'Old Man Yelling at Clouds!' rant LOL I'm not interested in playing a computer game version of my beloved tabletop roleplaying games! In-person please, whenever possible.
I play with my brothers over discord and we do pencil, paper, theater of the mind, and it's pretty close to irl ttrpg. When I need it for prep, I just ask for them to send a pic of their current character sheet
This was a very intriguing video. You laid your points out very clearly and while I do like PF2E I understand your criticisms of it its really a preference thing honestly. I hope you have a good day Trevor :)
Our group pays Pathfinder much more like the expansions for Five Parsecs. As you mentioned, if there is something we want to do but don't have the particular skill, we collectively come up with a difficulty level that allows a chance to be successful.
I haven't started playing Pathfinder 2e at all, but I've been checking out its mechanics and looking at tools online, and the encounter building mechanics, including the way that there is more information on how to tool an encounter upwards or downwards in difficulty is interesting. Balance for the sake of balance can inadvertently make combat less interesting, but the ability for the GM to predict ahead of time that a particular encounter will be easy/quick versus extreme, I can see a benefit for when the GM wants to plan ahead and ratchet the intensity upwards or downwards as part of the adventure arc. For unpredictability's sake, a creative GM could always roll for how intense an encounter will be
Firstly, I love the jacket.
Secondly, thanks so much for an honest admission of your likes and filters and an honest review of PF2e.
I really appreciate your point of view.
Having run Pathfinder second edition solo with one character it isn't as complicated as you might sink it is. With the rules being the way they are it actually kind of makes it easier than you might think. On the other hand I would be curious if you read the game mastery guide and looked at their optional rules and how they addressed some of the things you talked about. Especially the stuff about rules over the game table play. Most of the times when I've game mastered it or played the game Master's will allow you to do it just about anything it's just the people that have the feet are guaranteed to be able to do it the way the defeat reads it to be.
Hi there I'm interested in your comment about running this solo. What gm emulator did you use and how deep into the game did you go?
@@robkeeley1570 if I run a party of four I generally use mythic to e! If I'm doing a single character I will usually dual class and then run a modified version of how Scarlet heroes does combat. Mostly it is about just making sure I understand the characters, and have a good idea of the basics of the world before I get started. Since it's a sandbox game it's just basically coming up with my creation of the world beforehand.
@@warmtropicalwave that sounds fantastic and a lot of fun. Can I ask what books pathfinder books you got to start with?
I like the idea of having an inherently balanced robust rules system so the game can be balanced by default and occasionally break that with my rulings, while 5e is unbalanced by default and I have to fix it with my rulings.
For Westmarches Style: Using the official Variant "Proficiency without Level" would make the math a bit more loose.
Alternatively you can adjust the level of the creature on the fly by adding/subtracting to the proficiency to bring their checks in the range of the PCs. Then its more about the skill profile and the abilities of the monster (can it fly etc. has it invisibility etc)
Westmarches/Hexploration style games work just fine, in fact you run them similarly to how you'd do them in 5e: you create zones for a specific level and don't throw in extremely difficult encounters, allowing players to explore above their level. You've got a level range of 9 to work with (-4 < APL < +4). Occasionally you throw in high level encounters in low level areas as quests, which have been handled by more experienced adventurers previously. Also won't hurt immersion: a village of level 0 farmers won't be established in the depths of the Abyss and even in real life, it becomes harder to survive the further you venture from civilization.
I agree with all you said. I find the tactical combat is fun and the monsters are fun to GM, but it wouldn’t be my only game.
I have been trying to play through PF2E solo and your points are spot on. I love the game, and I'm using the solo play to also better understand it for running for an upcoming group campaign, but PF2E really seems to have a focus on teamwork, which then makes it feel very much like, when running just 1 PC, that you do end up doing a lot more of that swinging three times even though you shouldn't because you don't have other PCs to manuver with to get flanking, or to aid, or most of the other things PF2E veterans suggest using your third action for.
One of my favorite series on TH-cam! I've been more and more intrigued by PF2e. Glad to finally have your 2 cents on the system.
A very interesting point about Hexploration types of games and yes, PF2e needs to limit a bit the randomization to not screw over the party.
Funnily enough, Paizo has recently released a 2nd edition version of Kingmaker which one such game. It has level-based random tables for every region and it could be worth a check if interested. I've not delved too deep into it, because I'm supposed to be playing the campaign and I do not want to spoil myself, but I do wonder how many off-level creatures are on those tables.
I have read the rules but I haven't had a chance to actually try out Pathfinder 2e, but it does appeal to me (I love tactical combat and dungeon crawls). There are rules and options for everything, whether on the player or on the GM side, so everyone has tools and components to build some really cool stuff. It's like being a kid with tons of legos. But as a solo player, it is daunting to try to run it as intended, I would probably go more for Pathfinder for Savage Worlds since it's easier to run on the fly.
I agree with some of your points and I can understand that it may not be your cup of tea. However, I would say "everything is forbidden unless there is a rule for it" isn't a pathfinder thing. In fact, I would argue the opposite. There are a lot of rules support to customizing your own game such as rules to creating your own subsystems, adjusting encounters, etc.
It's not a rules vs ruling thing. A lot of its rules provide the framework so that rulings are made easier.
Trevor, you rock!
Great video as always. Thanks for sharing your views on the system. What kind of character are you playing in your PF2e game?
I really liked your choice of lighting for this video.
I'd love to see you do a video about Savage Worlds. That's my primary system.
I've ran Pathfinder 1e as a solo game. I'm a veteran 3.5e player/DM and as long as you're familiar with the rules, it works well.
While I mostly agree with you on everything. I think randomness works well in pf2e and Paizo ever supports this with their hex crawl rules. They literally say not to curate encounters if you don’t want to, because having battles you can win and needing to flee is part of hex crawls.
Otherwise, I agree 100% with you. After playing pf2e for 2 years, I just don’t think it’s the system for me because of how rules dense and stifling it is.
This was a great video. I enjoy PF2, but I cannot ever imagine playing it solo. And I agree with you on Foundry being a necessary evil. I'd much rather play it at a table.
Pathfinder has always interested me. It might be because it comes with its own, defined game world and lots of fluff text about it. This then lets me really dive into the game world and maybe come up with new stories. But I must agree, the rules can be a bit too crunchy with many boons and banes to add to your roll. Maybe I'll look into Pathfinder for Savage Worlds but combine it with the world from second edition.
I totally agree with "books over PDF". I bought quite some PDFs but it is always an issue to read them on my tablet. I constantly have to adjust the zoom level, when the text is in two columns and this interrupts my flow of reading. For quick look ups, sure! But actually reading things, nah, I prefer the physical book!
Also, I'd love to hear your thoughts on "The dark eye"!
I can already tell from the reviews that this is a game I would not enjoy *running*. I might enjoy playing it
I can see where you are going with the "not for a west marches / sandbox style of game" but I'm not sure about this since the biggest and maybe most famous adventure path of pathfinder is Kingmaker which is actually a sandbox game in itself...
Would definitely be interested in that game balance video, as someone who generally agrees that game balance is over-rated but can't exactly articulate why.
Man, that smoking jacket is awesome!
Pathfinder could be so good if they just simplified the individual mechanics a little. I was remember being interested in stealth, and by chance a video I was watching of Pathfinder guys got asked in the chat about how stealth skill worked. Their rather evasive answer was "Once you wrap your head around it, Pathfinder stealth skill is great and flexible." So I looked up the rule and--not being very familiar with the system in general--couldn't make heads or tails of the stealth mechanics. Oh well.
My personal peeve with 5e is not that it does not have a rule for everything, but that it is as much vague and in the same time as much rules heavy to create a lot of RAW Vs. RAI situations.
I like Pathfinder 1st ed.
PF2e can easily be run OSR style, which allows the deep tactical combat to combine with randomness and procedural story telling. I am running a campaign precisely like an OSR game and find PF2e works perfectly with minor variant rules. I can leverage the robust and predictable system for combat and dice mechanics, allowing me to focus on story generation and connecting narrative points. The encounter building system is amazing, allowing me to drop creatures on the fly without worrying too much about balance. It doesn't necessarily require the careful precision as you might think. Trevor, I'd be happy to share how easily this can be achieved if you want more information. Cheers! Thanks for the great videos.
I do not particularly like Pathfinder 2E mechanics, too much number crunching for me but i am fond of the adventures paths modules and the Lost Omens sourcebooks.
I do love Pathfinder for Savage Worlds though! Great insight as always Mr. Devall!
Ahh, yes. A gentleman of fine taste!
Excellent review and I tend to agree on most all accounts, as per usual!
If not already, take a look at Level Up! Advanced 5e please.
Please make the video about game balance and whether or not it matters!
Trevor, I think PF2 is better playing with 2d10 than 1d20 due to how swingy the d20 is when you have 4 levels of success/failure. Do you think that is a good idea or not worth the trouble?
I am not Trevor, but, yes.
It’s funny, I think role playing games that try to become war games struggle with the issue of restrictive rules. Oddly enough when I play a war game I don’t mind strict rules but then I don’t expect to get inside the head of my soldier/character/meeple in a war game.
This is an awesome video on the system.
I thought I would just point out: the logo in the thumbnail is the Pathfinder 1e logo. Otherwise, good video.
You must have an incredible PF2e GM then, Mr. Devall. Please give my best regards to the Master of the game.
I LOVE Pathfinder 2e, but...
1) I wouldn't use it for SOLO-Play
2) Again, LOVE IT but it isn't for everyone
Like D&D 4e, Pathfinder 2e is not afraid to be unabashedly transparent about what it's focus is on: computer game-like skirmish combat.
THANKS TREVOR, THANKS! We completely agree on the VTT comment. If I wanted to play Diablo, I would play Diablo. VTTs were great in the COVID era, they can help us with remote friends, but they are not the "thing".
During the OGL crisis, I honestly found it frustrating how much PF2e was being pushed as the 5e alternative. I don't think Pathfinder IS what most frustrated 5e GMs and players are looking for.
Anecdotally, I think most are looking for "how can I make it easier to play like Critical Role?" not "How can I add more numbers and video game elements?" 5e developed in a specific play culture that has left the system somewhat at war with itself, but I think Pathfinder sends 5e exiles down the complete opposite path to the one they're actually looking for.
I think low prep cinematic games like Savage Worlds or the Cypher System (just eg) are far more aligned with the "hey you can do Critical Role without tons of homework" that 5e folks are actually looking for, in my experience. I suspect a lot of PF newcomers are gonna bounce straight back to 5e if those are presented as the two primary options, as they have been. I just find it a shame 🤷♂️
The problem with game balance, is that it doesn't take player experience into balance!
Pathfinder 2E has been around long enough that someone probably has made solo rules for it!
So basically we should ask, PF2 the videogame when
Pathfinder 2 is a game for G A M E R S.
Hi Trevor. A year later, we are still waiting for the video about game balance 🙂
Can we get a review show?
PF2 has been a pretty big disappointment for me as well, Trevor. I strongly agree with almost all of your points, to wit:
Paizo became so enthralled with "balance" and wedging every niggling aspect of gameplay into the 3-action system that they treated basic reasoning, logic, and facts like red-headed stepchildren. The system is just too overwrought, overthought, and overdone. The result of forcing all these square pegs into round holes is an uneven system that dilutes the overall enjoyment of the game. In comparison, PF1 - hoary warts and all - still has much more color, gusto, and an edge that PF2 simply doesn't have.
I'll give you just one example, out of many, of Paizo's poor choices with PF2: The assigning of what things constitute 1-, 2-, or 3-actions must have been done on a day when the game designers let their kids play with their laptops. Some of the choices are downright laughable, but that's what you'd expect by forcing every piece of minutia into their precious 3-action cage.
Here's a particularly ludicrous one: Dropping Prone. In PF2, it costs 1 action. Did you know that Mounting A Horse also costs 1 action? Seriously. Anyone who has ever actually experienced mounting a horse will tell you how profoundly ridiculous it is to even think about equating those two actions. Do you know how many other things in PF2 cost 1 action, ostensibly mirroring the obscenely minimal amount of time, effort, and energy needed to Drop Prone? DOZENS! From Casting a Spell (approximately 15 x-level spells are just one action - not just cantrips!) to Forcing open a door or window with a crowbar to Striding 25 or so feet...to just taking ONE STEP? From Escaping a Grapple to Treating someone medically for being poisoned to...Raising A Shield?!
The sheer amount of these poorly-assigned actions is so beyond stupid that it's actually kind of insulting...and honestly, more than a little disgraceful. No one will ever be able to convince me that anyone on the Paizo design team spent more than a handful of minutes whipping up that part of the game.
And speaking of Raising A Shield...it's shocking how incredibly biased PF2 is against shield-users! The design team's families must have all suffered grievous harm from roving bands of shield-wielding marauders, because wow...the insane amount of extra time, money, and effort just use a shield that's useless after one or two rounds of combat is simply farcical. I won't go into detail because I could go on for awhile. Suffice to say that you should never, ever play a character who uses a shield in PF2. Trust me, you'll be much happier.
In all honestly, if two of my GMs weren't running PF2, I wouldn't touch it again. To that point, one of them is actually rushing us through the AP we're playing so he can ditch the system ASAP, as he's had his fill of it. The other GM is an old-school hack-and-slash guy, so the time and character investment is minimal.
Remember _ye olden tymes_ when "GM's" were sometimes called "referees?" Sounds like that's what a Pathfinder GM might be called.
Winning the battle against the bottle? Looking better than ever!
i think... that its the perfect "game"... and there in lies the problem... i still prefer it over dnd5e tho
Yep. Game balance is a passion killer
My biggest beef with 3e and derivatives is the ridiculous predetermined character build game that you have to play if you don't want your character to be broken. It's a terrible trap for new players to fall into, and isn't conducive to a character evolving naturally as the campaign story proceeds.
I should clarify. The problem stems from some class abilities stacking, while others don't. The classic example would be the level 5/5 fighter mage in a 10th level party, who gets to choose between being a level 5 fighter or a level 5 mage each round, against 10hd critters. The gestalt style multiclassing of 2e and earlier, although not being as straightforward, worked far far better in actual play.
Ah, you later mention that this has been fixed in PF2e. Very good.
This is probably the best review and take on PF2 I have ever seen. I'm deeply suspicious of all the "PF2 is the best" advocates and you precisely put your fingers on the points that make me uneasy about this game - including the art style (which I really don't like in PF). The only thing I would add is the character sheet - both in color (which literally makes me feel uneasy in the stomach looking at it - no kidding here) and in printer friendly or whatever other version. I find it confusing and uninspiring to look at at best.
I can appreciate PF2 for what it is but just like you I prefer games that are a little more open to hand wave certain situations.
Let's get back to Five Parsecs, please.
Personally, I find PF one of the worse rpg ever. 2nd, 3rd or 120th edition won't change the hatred i feel towards it. Countless silly feats for a single bonus; math is unbearable for the simplest move; tons of idiotic rules kill atmosphere and pathos... Away from me, PF!