Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[willrali]

Yeah, it was a variation on previous complaints about complexity, though the 4e video complaints had a dimension of ‘restrictiveness’ that was notably absent from the p2 video.

The guy likes 5e. Nothing wrong with that. It’s good to like the thing everyone plays. (As I’ve mentioned before, I‘m very over 5e and prefer both AD&D 2e and P2 for different reasons.) Puffin Forest gonna do what he does.

 

[Nilbog]

Is it more complex than 5e? Without doubt. Is it overly complex? Well that's in the eye of the beholder (wotc trademarks apply )

I love pf2e and it's my go to game but there are areas I find over fiddly, and the rules rely on a breadcrumb approach which often makes things more complex than they need to be. What I will add is it certainly flows better in play than how it reads, things that seem complex on paper go well in play (the degrees of success I think is a good example of this)

It's no where near the levels of 4e though (a game I also enjoyed) we only got to the first few levels of epic tier and my rangers turn alone could take ten minutes calculating the number of attacks, the bonuses granted and damage, especially when our warlord was boosting him, and then add in all the reactions and counter reactions

 

[LotsOfLore]

Hey, if you like it despite (or even because of) its complexity, good for you. But you aren’t doing potential players any favours when you claim it isn’t considerably more complicated than 5e.

Ok now I have to set the record straight: I am the last person who is doing a disservice to potential new PF2 players. I love the game and have brought all of my regular rpg playing friends over on board with it (some of them from 5e) also because I was able to show them how wrong these claims of PF2 being "considerably more difficult" than 5e really are.

Please try not to misinterpret my own explanation of why I think the game is good. I was very clear: the game is easy to learn and easy to play (more so from the player's perspective), while it is indeed A LITTLE MORE complex than 5e. It's well engineered complexity allows for a much deeper expansion, customization and exploration of what can be done with a fantasy rpg, with respect to 5e. It's more easily scalable, it's modular nature makes it easier to expand and manage over a long period of time, and clearly it's Paizo's intention to keep it around for a long, long time.

It will be interesting to refresh this discussion once D&D 6th edition will come out.

 

[billd91]

Ok now I have to set the record straight: I am the last person who is doing a disservice to potential new PF2 players. I love the game and have brought all of my regular rpg playing friends over on board with it (some of them from 5e) also because I was able to show them how wrong these claims of PF2 being "considerably more difficult" than 5e really are.

Emphasis mine above. Your problem in this thread is you keep changing the nature of our statements and quotes like you did above. When we were saying it was “considerably more complex” you replaced considerably with “overly”... which is not what we said. Now, you‘ve changed more complex to be “more difficult”.

Whether you’re doing it unconsciously or deliberately, please stop.

 

[LotsOfLore]

Emphasis mine above. Your problem in this thread is you keep changing the nature of our statements and quotes like you did above. When we were saying it was “considerably more complex” you replaced considerably with “overly”... which is not what we said. Now, you‘ve changed more complex to be “more difficult”.

Whether you’re doing it unconsciously or deliberately, please stop.

Feel free to wiggle out of this with semantics, if that makes you feel better. I know what I meant, you know what I meant. It's all pretty clear. Since there's clearly no chance of changing your minds on PF2, there's no need for me to keep trying.

 

[dave2008]

Ok now I have to set the record straight: I am the last person who is doing a disservice to potential new PF2 players. I love the game and have brought all of my regular rpg playing friends over on board with it (some of them from 5e) also because I was able to show them how wrong these claims of PF2 being "considerably more difficult" than 5e really are.

Please try not to misinterpret my own explanation...

Seriously? You are asking people not to misinterpret when that is exactly what your doing. Considerably more complex =/= considerably more difficult. You are the one misinterpreting my and I believe other's comments. So as to not have that happen again I will be very clear.

I believe PF2e is considerably more complex than 5e.

I believe PF2e is comparably difficult to 5e, it is just a different type of difficulty.

I you wish me to elaborate I will, but I want to clarify that point.

 

[dave2008]

Feel free to wiggle out of this with semantics, if that makes you feel better. I know what I meant, you know what I meant. It's all pretty clear. Since there's clearly no chance of changing your minds on PF2, there's no need for me to keep trying.

Further clarification needed i guess. Maybe you haven't followed my post on this forum (Pathfinder forum), but I will set you straight: yes you probably will not change my mind about PF2, but I don't think you would want to. I think it is an amazing system. Probably the best designed game I have seen. However, I still believe it is considerably more complex than 5e (but not more difficult).

 

[dave2008]

Feel free to wiggle out of this with semantics, if that makes you feel better. I know what I meant, you know what I meant. It's all pretty clear. Since there's clearly no chance of changing your minds on PF2, there's no need for me to keep trying.

Final point of clarification on why your getting the reaction about your word changes (which a decidedly not just semantic):

1. "considerably more complex" means it has a lot more complexity. This is a neutral statement (complexity can be good or bad)
2. "overly complex," your phrase, means it has too much complexity. Which has a negative connotation.
3. "considerably more difficult," your phrase again, means it is more difficult. This also has a negative connotation.

In both instances, you took a neutral statement and turned it negative. Complexity is neutral, it can be good or bad. Therefore having more can be good or bad. When you change "considerably more complex" to "overly" or "difficult," you are making it a value judgement. Which the original statement was not.

 

[Parmandur]

Puffin Forest video ranted about PF2 is too complex, and now he runs a 4E one shot? So I'm not sure where he's coming from:

He likes the abstract idea of more complexity, but when the rubber meets the road he finds that in actual play his personal preference isn't at 4E or PF levels of complexity.

 

[FrozenNorth]

He likes the abstract idea of more complexity, but when the rubber meets the road he finds that in actual play his personal preference isn't at 4E or PF levels of complexity.

In a separate video, I believe he said he started with 4e, so there may be some nostalgia as well.