Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[glass]

Your wrong (that doesn't make me right of course). He/she specifically pointed out your misrepresentation and you ignored it and claimed victory.

We appear to be reading different threads. I went back and re-read FrozenNorth's post where he claimed to be misrpresented just in case it had said something I missed, but it didn't.

I guess I find it funny about people saying it is not complex. It is, embrace it - don't deny it.

PF2 is complex, and I have said as much myself several times. For the most part, I do embrace it. There are a couple of areas where I think the mechanics could be streamlined with no loss of depth (post-combat healing springs to mind), but broadly speaking I think the complexity is well spent.

But please can we talk about the complexity that PF2 actually has, rather than things people have made up, or accidentally misrepresented with hasty posting?

_
glass.

 

[kenada]

Absolutely.

If 5E did not exist, we would likely all be applauding Paizo's clean design.

For PF2 to be successful, 5e does not have to lose. The systems can be evaluated separately on their own merits. I think they both do good things, and they both have their issues. I see no reason to deny that PF2 does well what it set out to do just because the market leader opted to take a different path.

 

[Haffrung]

A lot of people saying because they haven’t had much trouble learning PF2, then it’s not a complex game. But let’s be honest - we’re all uber nerds, and these sorts of forums attract people who revel in analysing and learning mechanics. We are far, far from typical gamers.

A more objective or empirical way to assess the relative complexity of PF2 is to compare it to other games. So out of the 10 most popular RPGs on the market today, where does PF2 rank? I’d put it as the second or third most complicated (after 3.5 and PF1). And that’s treating 3.5 and PF1 as living games. If we’re looking strictly at in-print games, PF2 may well the most complex popular RPG.

 

[kenada]

Flat footed and cover don't modify attacks in PF2e?

Flat-footed imposes a −2 circumstance penalty on AC. Cover provides a circumstance bonus to AC and Reflex saving throws depending on the nature of the cover.

 

[kenada]

I honestly wish I could: I find this sort of practical data more useful than white-room theorizing. Unfortunately, I don’t have the adventures either.

Same. The last time I suggested on reddit that the official adventures might be over-tuned (and Paizo had a history of over-tuning back to PF1), I got a response that was essentially we were bad at PF1.

 

[kenada]

A lot of people saying because they haven’t had much trouble learning PF2, then it’s not a complex game. But let’s be honest - we’re all uber nerds, and these sorts of forums attract people who revel in analysing and learning mechanics. We are far, far from typical gamers.

I’d describe PF2 as simultaneously simple and complex. The core of PF2 is very simple. You don’t have to memorize a bunch of exceptions. Everything is a check. You have three actions and a reactions. That’s it. Does something trigger a reaction? Just look at the traits. However, all those traits (and conditions) create a pretty steep learning curve. It really helps to internalize those to make things go smoothly, but there’s a lot to learn. It also doesn’t help that the book tends not to do a good job of actually teaching the rules.

Take the visibility rules. They spend three pages explaining them, and they can be summarized much more concisely (and clearly IMO) in three bullets:

• If you know a creature is there somewhere, it exists on a spectrum of awareness: observed, hidden, undetected. If you don’t, then it’s unnoticed.
• You use Hide and Seek to change you or your target’s place on the spectrum.
• The spectrum also corresponds to the best senses can perceive a target: precise ⇒ observed, imprecise ⇒ hidden, vague ⇒ undetected.

We didn’t grok the visibility rules until I put together a flow chart. After I did that, I saw how simple they actually were (and then grumbled about how they could have been presented more clearly).

A more objective or empirical way to assess the relative complexity of PF2 is to compare it to other games. So out of the 10 most popular RPGs on the market today, where does PF2 rank? I’d put it as the second or third most complicated (after 3.5 and PF1). And that’s treating 3.5 and PF1 as living games. If we’re looking strictly at in-print games, PF2 may well the most complex popular RPG.

Don’t forget Starfinder! More seriously, I’d probably put Shadowrun and maybe Cyberpunk ahead of PF2. I’m not sure where they place on the latest sales ranking though.

 

[Vael]

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.

Thank you for clarifying, your initial comment read too much like "get gud" gatekeeping for my taste.

My struggle with P2, however, hasn't really been satisfied. Is P2 too complex, the answer seems to be, "not if you like complexity", which isn't really helpful. I don't mind complexity, but what am I getting in return, or, to rephrase my conflict with P2:

"What benefits come from the higher complexity of P2 and do they outweigh the costs of it being a more complicated game?"

I certainly can enjoy complex games. I look forward to post-covid to get in a game of Twilight Imperium, I enjoy intricate combos and I play a lot of EDH in Magic the Gathering. But those games, the complexity forms a puzzle to be solved, and the examples of complexity that have been presented in this thread feel like busywork instead. Playing a mini-game to identify a magic item or heal a PC haven't been presented here as interesting puzzles, merely a chance to fill out some tax forms. And, for those that like that, sure, no judgment, I just find this is a case where the benefits do not outweight the costs for me.

Does the increase in complexity provide a richer tactical environment in combat? Eh? My experience is limited, but my initial read says no. Combat is swingier, a lucky roll here or not can trivialize an encounter, or make it a lot harder, but that's not what I'd call a richer tactical game. The gold standard for me in tactical play is 4e, a game I'd argue is still simpler than P2, but provides a more interesting combat experience.

Does the increase in complexity allow for more varied character creation options? Probably yes, but then I've been reading a lot of rules-light narrative systems, like Cypher or Fate Core and tbh, the sky is kinda the limit there. Sure, those PCs aren't as mechanically unique, but again, we run into the issue of learning said mechanics, which increases the barrier to entry.

I guess, for me, having a complex game for the sake of being a complex game is not inherently valuable. But, I am trying to keep an open mind, and I have not made any final judgments about Pathfinder 2 yet.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Thank you for clarifying, your initial comment read too much like "get gud" gatekeeping for my taste.

Yeah, looking back I phrased that poorly.

"Does the complexity create depth? (at a good ratio)" isn't a question I'm quite ready to answer.

 

[Protonicmass]

For PF2 to be successful, 5e does not have to lose. The systems can be evaluated separately on their own merits. I think they both do good things, and they both have their issues. I see no reason deny that PF2 does well what it set out to do just because the market leader opted to take a different path.

In a perfect world, sure. But most people don't think like that before they gravitate one way or another.

 

[kenada]

In a perfect world, sure. But most people don't think like that before they gravitate one way or another.

Sure, but that’s beside the point. The issue I took was with the position that it didn’t matter whether PF2 succeeded at what it set out to do because it didn’t follow 5e.