Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[!DWolf]

Going back to the initial example, it is not just two floating modifiers. It is two floating modifiers (MAP and sweeping) before any of the bonuses and penalties from the combat are calculated.

At low levels, there was generally at least one additional modifier on most attacks. The most common were flat-footed, cover, and bless.

Just for clarity: Neither cover or flat-footed modify attacks, they change the targets AC and are usually calculated by the attacked and not the attacker.

 

[FrozenNorth]

The only one of those that actually modifies attacks is bless. And 5e bless also adds to attack rolls (only a die roll rather than a fixed add). Rather an unfortunate set of examples for your case, wouldn't you say?

I was giving a specific example from my experience. People can take it or leave it as they wish. Bless absolutely affects attack rolls, and your suggestion that it shouldn’t apply “because it also affects attack rolls in 5e” is pure nonsense.

The fact that the player is managing at least two floating bonuses to attack AND the DM is managing floating penalties to AC on the same attack is precisely the sort of issue Vael was complaining about.

 

[glass]

I was giving a specific example from my experience. People can take it or leave it as they wish. Bless absolutely affects attack rolls, and your suggestion that it shouldn’t apply “because it also affects attack rolls in 5e” is pure nonsense.

It absolutely affect attack rolls. It absolutely is not an example of PF2 being more cimplex than 5e (the central thesis of the thread), since as noted the 5e version includes not only a similar modifier but an extra die roll as well. You picked bad examples. It happens - you can laugh it off or double down. I would recomend the former, you seems to be going with the latter.

_
glass.

 

[jmartkdr2]

How do you know which feats you're able to pick?

More to the point, how do you know you haven't missed a feat (or three dozen) you are able to pick?

(I'm not trying to trap you here - if you answer "the app tells me which feats I can choose between" that is a perfectly cromulent reply)

The app, the websites, the headers for the feats - it's not like it's hidden information.

 

[jmartkdr2]

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.



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.

Ah... I misread what you said. I thought you meant "all new players will read all the feats" which would be a barrier to entry if true.

It seems whet you really meant is "more than zero new players will feel the need to read all the feats" - which is of course true, although I'm not sure counts as a barrier to entry. After all, players self-imposing things that make the game more difficult isn't really a critique of the game.

 

[FrozenNorth]

It absolutely affect attack rolls. It absolutely is not an example of PF2 being more cimplex than 5e (the central thesis of the thread), since as noted the 5e version includes not only a similar modifier but an extra die roll as well. You picked bad examples. It happens - you can laugh it off or double down. I would recomend the former, you seems to be going with the latter.

Except it wasn’t a 5e comparison.

I was responding to jmartkdr2 who said “if 2 floating modifiers is more than you can deal with - PF2 is not for you”.

I responded that it was more than 2 floating modifiers - the 2 modifiers mentioned did not take into account the specificities of any combat.

I pointed out that in my experience of low level PF2, there was generally at least one additional modifier on pretty much every attack. From what I’ve read, you agree with this and jmartkdr2 also agrees with this.

I specifically use examples from my game to try to avoid white-room theorycrafting. One example was a bonus to hit, the other two were penalties to AC, which affect the exact same attack.

If I wanted to white-room theorize, I would point out that claiming that there are 3 bonuses on an attack is itself inaccurate, because the attacker, in addition to having up to 3 typed bonuses, could at the same time have up to 3 typed penalties on the attack.

Anything else is misrepresenting my position.

 

[jmartkdr2]

snip

I was responding to jmartkdr2 who said “if 2 floating modifiers is more than you can deal with - PF2 is not for you”.

snip

Just to re-state my own point: since an attack roll in PF2 is likely to have 4+ floating mods applying to it, anyone who thinks 2 floating mods is bordering on "too complex" will not enjoy PF2, because it's too complex for their tastes. That doesn't make them bad players or anything - just not the audience for the game we're discussing.

 

[glass]

Anything else is misrepresenting my position.

Doubling down it is then? Your position was wrong. Nevermind bless, your other two examples do not affect attack rolls.

(And before you say you did not say "attack rolls", just "attacks", that is true but you were responding a discussion about what modifier's affect a Ranger's attack rolls specifically.)

_
glass.

 

[kenada]

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.

But to what end? What does everyone get out of agreeing with you? How does that help the game you purportedly love? If there’s a problem due to self-imposed constraints, then forgo those constraints. Don’t forget the first rule of Pathfinder 2e.

 

[kenada]

As far as I can understand they follow the encounter guidelines religiously. (Sometimes too religiously)

Sure there's been the odd mistake where a monster ended up being more dangerous than probably intended, but I'm not holding that against them.

What I was hoping someone would share is a link to a breakdown of encounters by difficulty. Book 1 has X severe, Y moderate, etc. I don’t have the books, and I’m not going to buy them just to look at what the spread of threats are in their encounters.

What I wanted to say in regards to this is that it's probably the guidelines, not the adventures. When I made my first little sandbox (before official APs were out) I - in retrospect - almost or literally never knowingly created encounters as hard as what I later understood were meant as "business as usual".

PF2 does not prescribe an adventuring day or even how adventures should be designed. There are some recipes in the GMG, but those are not prescriptive either. How can you say that (in a sense) you were doing it wrong when the system does not specify what is right? You can’t just look at Paizo’s APs and conclude that’s how the system intends GMs to design adventures. That doesn’t follow at all. You’re assuming the antecedent.