Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[jmartkdr2]

So, you haven't read ahead to plan for later levels? It's a common thing.

So, you've DMed for a group of newbies where you needed to help them conceptualize, build and advance their characters and you've done that without reading their feats?

So, you've never browsed the feats to see what's possible? Or what's intereting to make a character around?

If the answer to any of these is "no", then this is just anecdotal evidence that doesn't address the points I put out so should be discarded.

I don't see how doing any of those things would require reading all of the feats, though. Do you need to read every spell as well, even the traditions you cannot cast? All the monsters of every level before you plan any encounters?

EDIT: picking stuff out:

"So, you haven't read ahead to plan for later levels? It's a common thing."

Above, you said it was absolutely true that a new player will read all the feats - now you're saying it's common. Those are significantly different concepts, especially when discussing the barrier to entry for the game. Do most, some, or all players read all the feats? Ands what's your source for your claim to said frequency? (note that you yourself stated that anecdotes aren't valid.)

"So, you've DMed for a group of newbies where you needed to help them conceptualize, build and advance their characters and you've done that without reading their feats?"

This would imply reading the feats they took, which does not require reading all the feats they didn't take - four players would have about 20 feats at level 1 if none of them overlap, so about 1% of the total number of feats. That's pretty far off from "absolutely all" - and a lot less reading to get the game ready.

"So, you've never browsed the feats to see what's possible? Or what's intereting to make a character around?"

Does one need to browse absolutely every feat available before making a decision? Or can someone say "I'd like to be a fighter" and read only the fighter feats? Or even the first-level fighter feats?

"If the answer to any of these is "no", then this is just anecdotal evidence that doesn't address the points I put out so should be discarded."

I guess my experience with the game isn't valid, or I'm not a new player. After all, your anecdotes are much more relevant than mine, since your experience is more valid than mine.

 

[glass]

So, you haven't read ahead to plan for later levels? It's a common thing.

I might choose to do that, I might not. It is not required. And as @jmartkdr2 points out, even if it did it would not require reading all the feats in the game.

If the answer to any of these is "no", then this is just anecdotal evidence that doesn't address the points I put out so should be discarded.

So your anecdotal evidence counts, but other people's only count if it agrees with you?

_
glass.

 

[TreChriron]

So, you haven't read ahead to plan for later levels? It's a common thing.
...
If the answer to any of these is "no", then this is just anecdotal evidence that doesn't address the points I put out so should be discarded.

If the answer is "no? Is no more anecdotal than your evidence...

Someone told you they don't read all the feats. So there you go. Is it common? In my experience - no. Most players don't read the whole book. Many players read only the min required. The build masters like to read everything because somewhere hidden in all those words is a tasty combo that will shine. I can guide players by having a copy of their character sheet. We can explore options to level up together. Should the GM have proficiency in the system they run? Sure! But you can gain that over several sessions. You don't have to be an expert going in. Neither do the players.

 

[Vael]

If two floating modifiers is too much, Pathfinder isn't right for you.

That's rather condescending. It's not that the math is particularly hard, it's that it's always relevant, and has to happen to resolve any action.

In 5e, in the before times when we could play in person, one could resolve an attack without having do all the steps. The player rolls a 14 on the die, and my monster has 14 (or around 14) AC, I don't have to have the player actually add their relevant modifiers. It's a hit, let's continue to damage. The number of conditional modifiers is really just Cover, and the player's actual attack modifier doesn't change.

In P2, well, now we still have to add the relevant numbers because monsters have effectively two ACs, one for a normal hit, and one for a critical hit. And those numbers change more, because of the nature of iterative attacks and how conditions work, so the time it takes to resolve the action is always higher.

Is it difficult? Not particularly. But it's omnipresent, fiddly, and after playing 5e for so many years, I am unsure if it's necessary. I don't know if the cost of more complicated action resolution provides some great benefit to play. But I'm only 2 sessions into my first P2 campaign/adventure, so the jury is still out for me.

 

[kenada]

SPOILERS FOR PLAGUESTONE

Spoiler

The final dungeon in Plaguestone had 12 encounters by my count. Of these, I would describe maybe 4 as “fairly easy”.
Naturally, our group ended up aggroing multiple encounters so the DM ended up playing extremely sub-optimally to avoid killing us.

Spoiler

If I had to guess, the rest were probably a mix of moderate and severe encounters. Moderate should be winnable if you use good tactics, but it’s the first threat level where the adventuring day is expected to end if you play badly or make a mistake. They should be doable when you’re down on resources, but that’s likely to reduce the margin for error some.

Looking at the GMG’s adventure recipes, most of them feature about a third or more moderate and likewise for severe. If the official adventures are like that or worse, that’s ridiculously overtuned. I know that PF2 errs on the side of system mastery as combat expertise versus character building, but ouch. That’s a rough way to git gud at tactics.

I think I’ve maybe used one, possibly two, severe encounters so far out of twenty sessions. In fairness, I use Proficiency Without Level, so a severe encounter would either have to have a ton of monsters or something well beyond the PCs’ level (like a t-rex creature versus a 5th level party). Even if they could technically take it out, my PCs would be so afraid of a t-rex that they’d immediately run away or hide.

Spoiler

The game was a bit vague about how much time pressure there was, but there were definitely too many encounters to take care of without regular resting, and leaving, taking a long rest and returning wreaked havoc with verisimilitude.

Spoiler

Without knowing what the dungeon is like, it’s hard to say. That can be reasonable, but it can also be unreasonable. Assuming the adventure’s structured such that you’re not expected to make multiple attempts, then the only reasonable thing to do would be to bring tons of consumables. Of course, Treat Wounds was supposed to obviate that, so .

 

[kenada]

Is it difficult? Not particularly. But it's omnipresent, fiddly, and after playing 5e for so many years, I am unsure if it's necessary. I don't know if the cost of more complicated action resolution provides some great benefit to play. But I'm only 2 sessions into my first P2 campaign/adventure, so the jury is still out for me.

Coming from PF1, it’s a major improvement. There are only three types of bonuses and penalties (plus untyped), and they’re fairly intuitive now (magic effects are usually status, items are usually item, bonuses from actions are usually circumstance). With that said, it is a big difference compared to 5e, and I can see how that might put some people off.

Regarding the ranger example, the way we did things in PF1 and the way I’d suggest to a player in my group is to write that all out ahead of time. You’re probably going to do a few sequences commonly, so you’d write the sequence of modifiers for the normal case. That just leaves the occasional circumstance bonus or penalty, which is usually not troublesome enough that we can’t math it out at the table. Of course, there are also tools that will handle that (we use campaign mode in Hero Lab Online).

 

[jmartkdr2]

That's rather condescending. It's not that the math is particularly hard, it's that it's always relevant, and has to happen to resolve any action.

In 5e, in the before times when we could play in person, one could resolve an attack without having do all the steps. The player rolls a 14 on the die, and my monster has 14 (or around 14) AC, I don't have to have the player actually add their relevant modifiers. It's a hit, let's continue to damage. The number of conditional modifiers is really just Cover, and the player's actual attack modifier doesn't change.

In P2, well, now we still have to add the relevant numbers because monsters have effectively two ACs, one for a normal hit, and one for a critical hit. And those numbers change more, because of the nature of iterative attacks and how conditions work, so the time it takes to resolve the action is always higher.

Is it difficult? Not particularly. But it's omnipresent, fiddly, and after playing 5e for so many years, I am unsure if it's necessary. I don't know if the cost of more complicated action resolution provides some great benefit to play. But I'm only 2 sessions into my first P2 campaign/adventure, so the jury is still out for me.

I'll give you that two is a rather low number of floating mods compared to the average in Pathfinder.

But the rest of what you say only reinforces my point. If you're looking for a new game and "low complexity" is a thing you want - Pathfinder 2e (or 1e) is not for you. It isn't even trying to cater to that goal. They did work to remove gratuitous complexity, but they consider a fairly high level of complexity quite alright, because their target audience is people whole like complexity in their games.

If two floating mods is more than you want to deal with - Pathfinder isn't for you.

 

[Blue]

I might choose to do that, I might not. It is not required. And as @jmartkdr2 points out, even if it did it would not require reading all the feats in the game.

So your anecdotal evidence counts, but other people's only count if it agrees with you?

_
glass.

I laid out multiple scenarios where one would want to read lots/more, never debating that there will be some who only read part of it. So yes, additional evidence that people who don't fit those scenario only read part of it means it literally has no impact on what I said.

It's like if I said "some people who live near the shore go to the beach several times a summer", and got a reply of "I live in a land-locked state and don't go to the beach several times a summer". It doesn't matter if what you say is true or not, it doesn't interact with the point at hand. It is meaningless towards the discussion.

I discarded what he said because it was irrelevant to the point he was responding to.

 

[Blue]

I don't see how doing any of those things would require reading all of the feats, though. Do you need to read every spell as well, even the traditions you cannot cast? All the monsters of every level before you plan any encounters?

Yes, there are people who have read every spell. And we're talking PC options, not DM options like monsters. Though if you want to include that sort of category I read every magic item in the DMG looking for items to give out.

(note that you yourself stated that anecdotes aren't valid.)

No, I said that acendotal evidece that doesn't address what is being talked about doesn't count. That was really rather explicit in what I said, not sure how you missed it unless you're trying to set up a strawman.

Let me restate the example I just gave:

It's like if I said "some people who live near the shore go to the beach several times a summer", and got a reply of "I live in a land-locked state and don't go to the beach several times a summer". It doesn't matter if what you say is true or not, it doesn't interact with the point at hand.

So, if by your own admission (since you claim I'm not counting your feedback) you aren't in the scenarios I suggested where people would be reading more, then it doesn't matter if you are another number on the side of "player who only reads their class and level". We already know that category exists and it wasn't what was under discussion.

 

[CapnZapp]

We’ve run into the problem PF2’s rules were designed to address.

Pathfinder 2 absolutely fixes a lot of issues, and is brilliant in some cases.

I am a harsh critic, but only of projects I love. Had Pathfinder 2 not been worthy of my attention, I would not have bothered trying to get everyone too see its needless clutter and complexity.

I've already stated elsewhere that from the perspective of, say, 2014, Pathfinder 2 comes across as a much cleaned-up and fixed version of previous editions (mainly PF1 and 4E).

But we don't live in the era of descending PF1 and 4E, we live in the era of ascending 5E. What breaks my heart is that Paizo has clearly been unable to kill its darlings - I see almost no evidence at all that someone - anyone - involved has realized the value of keeping things simple.

I am not asking for a 5E-ification of the game. I am merely asking for a game whose subsystems don't come across as needlessly, sometimes obnoxiously*, cluttered and complex.