Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[CapnZapp]

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

This is precisely what I want to discuss!

Far too many people try to pretend this isn't at the core of the discussion. As if one can't answer yes to both the below questions at the same time:

Does PF2 benefit from added complexity vs a game like 5E? Yes, absolutely. In some areas more than others, but sure.

But could PF2 have been just as good with far less clutter? Again, I absolutely think so. The game is curiously overengineered in far too many areas.

 

[CapnZapp]

My gut tells me players are perceiving moderate-threat encounters as more dangerous than they really are.

To be honest, this is what I love about the system.

The perception of danger, without a correspondingly large statistical risk of actual narrative disruption. That is a good thing in my book!

Of course, sooner or later players will learn the system so well the illusion shatters. But it is still nice.

In particular, I feel like moderate is the lowest level of threat where someone is likely to drop during the fight (though actually dying is unlikely). Consequently, when someone goes down to a big hit, that gets perceived as difficulty. At least, that’s been the case at my table. A few sessions ago, the ranger was down some hit points then took a hit for 40+ and dropped, and everyone was like (even though the party wasn’t really in danger unless they did something stupid). I’m curious what other people’s experiences are like.

I agree with your assessment.

The fact that a character can drop in nearly every encounter came as a big shock to us coming from 5E. I imagine we aren't the only ones.

 

[CapnZapp]

Aren't you playing Extinction Curse? I'm surprised your players haven't found a lot of AoE opportunities in that AP. I'm playing the same one and they have way more AoE opportunities than Age of Ashes. Extinction Curse is a more cohesive series of modules with a good mix of hard and average encounters that allow martials and casters to shine. The first module was a little rough, but 2 and 3 are well set up for AoE and caster shining. From what you have said you seem to be a martial heavy party that gave up on casters a while back. My druid has been obliterating module 2 and 3, while being the main healer and medic.

Our blaster is the Wizard. He's slowly coming into his own with Cones of Cold and Chain Lightning.

But that's at level 9 or 11. If you ask me, that is criminally late.

Seeing him cast Fireball on all four monsters of an encounter (there are very few encounters with lots of mooks) to deal maybe average weapon damage three of them, the fourth taking no damage at all, was pitiful.

He just expended one of his few highest-level slots, and it basically made no difference. No creature was dropped. Sure, it means one hit less is eventually needed for the martials, but that is a very low and unimpressive impact. The amount of incoming damage saved felt inconsequential.

Certainly up until level 7 I felt there are zero reasons to bring along a Wizard. A second (fourth, actually) martial would have been much more helpful. Another martial would definitely have made an impact where it counts: not only by reducing incoming damage faster by actually dropping enemies, but possibly even more importantly, by being far better equipped to soak incoming monster attacks.

The session before last, when the Wizard managed to insta-kill several mooks (from full hp to zero in one go) with his Chain Lightning, was the first time I recognized the power of magic. Everybody around the table cheered, relieved the player and character finally justified his place in the group as somebody capable of doing something the martials simply can't.

 

[glass]

Absolutely - that sounds like a great idea! I would love for you to give your response to my examples of rules complexity, for instance.

Well I already agreed with you the post-combat medicine usage could be streamlined, and admitted that I had not really looked at talismans. Conversely, I disagreed that the relatively small number of bonuses and penalties is a problem - rather I consider the relative lack of such to be a problem for me with 5e.

But this is a long pair of threads - remind what the other were (if any)?

_
glass.

 

[Retreater]

I've been running PF2 since late 2019, and the characters are around 8th level (we took a bit of a break figuring out how to game during the pandemic, and only play biweekly anyway). We also had two TPKs, necessitating in sessions "lost" to additional Session Zeroes and test sessions to try out character concepts.
It's complex. More than any variation of d20/D&D I've played (so including Basic, 2E, 3.xE, PF1, 4E, 5E, Numenera, 13th Age, Swords and Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord.) I can't drink when I run it, cannot have any distractions. The prep work I do is around 2 hours per 1 hour of gameplay. About half the players (the newer and casual ones) are frustrated by the number of options.
Do I appreciate it? Yeah. Does it make me long for OSR levels of simplicity? Also, yeah.

 

[kenada]

If you like to keep silent on what you perceive as painful missteps in an otherwise promising product, more power to you. Personally though, I do not like the idea that discussion forums should only be filled with uncritical praise. (Not saying you push this, Kenada. But every time I'm asked why I participate, I can't help hearing a small voice in the back of my head telling me "they just want you to shut up, grin, and bear it".)

I don't know why you come here, but a big reason why I frequent places like this is to be able to discuss and analyze anything from individual mechanics to overall design directions in as much of a brutally frank manner as civil discourse permits. And, of course, I'm not invulnerable to the pleasant feelings generated by managing to persuade my peers to acknowledge my points. I'm sure you have felt them too.

I come here for the news, and I like to discuss RPGs. However, I participate irregularly because I have limited interest in the constant edition-warring garbage. What I like discussing is the games I play. That includes the things they do well and how to hack them, but it also includes their flaws. I don’t do that because of some arrogant conception that I know better than the designer but so I can figure out a way to mitigate that problem in my game and share that with others. It’s a constructive discourse rather than destructive.

In this case, my basic theory is that Paizo completely ignored 5E in their design process, and that this is to the detriment of everybody playing PF2.

Instead of just saying "I don't like that", I am attempting to showcase exactly where and how the problems can occur. While advice such as "why complain, houserule!" contains a nugget of genuine helpfulness in telling frustrated gamers their rules aren't set in stone, such sentiments far too often come across as attempts to dismiss or shut down criticism. I also want to avoid ending up in relativisms like "you like it, I don't, everything's subjective, no game is better than another". I consider that nonsense. I absolutely believe some game designs are objectively better than others. I want to argue where Paizo could improve theirs.

Again, what do we gain by seeing the light? How does that make our PF2 games better? You’ve already excluded using house rules, so all that leaves is the knowledge that we’re playing some crappy game that should have been better? What’s the value in that?

It seems like you harp on this at every opportunity. It’s tiresome. It’s almost certainly driving people away from the game. For every one or two people who announce in these threads that they’ve noped on past PF2, how many just roll their eyes or shake their heads, and miss trying or playing a game that’s actually not as bad as the arguments make it seem? If you purported love the game, how is that actually good for it?

Let’s be honest. The way you choose to run your game is just another house-ruled approach. You say you’re trying to respect Paizo’s intent, but there’s no basis for that. What you say about encounters in published adventures doesn’t match what other people are saying about their experiences (other than they’re hard, but that’s orthogonal). The rules text does not support your assumptions. If you want to run your game that way, that’s totally cool. But using it as a reason to educate us plebes is patronizing and conceited.

 

[kenada]

I disagree with the notion that a game should not be judged by its official showcases and examples, just because that might be inconvenient.

It’s not that it’s inconvenient. It’s that it’s a fallacy to conclude that because Paizo designs adventures one way that the system is intended to be run that way. It doesn’t follow at all. Another equally plausible explanation is that they do it because that’s what the market expects (or what they think it does).

 

[jmartkdr2]

I have never suggested there was. My thesis is that a game where you want or need to use computerized assistence is complex.

The question is: did the game really have to be this complex?

Many gamers do not wish to bring phones or laptops to their tabletop roleplaying experience.

I don't think I've ever said it wasn't complex - I just feel (thus far, I'm still new at this ruleset) it gets a lot of bang for its complexity buck.

As for the second - it could be simpler, but barring perhaps a couple specific cases, you would lose either depth or customizability - which are the draws of the game. It's certainly not more complex than it wants to be. Complaining that PF2 is more complex than 5e DnD is like complaining that a Lexus costs more than a Toyota.

And on the last point - when you play online, this isn't an issue. And when you play in person, you're generally not making a lot of character building decisions mid-session, so the number of feats theoretically available isn't really relevant. Just the ones you have, which should already be on your character sheet.

 

[kenada]

It absolutely could be more clear than that.

That is why I wrote such a long and detailed post.

You attempted to link volume of material and bad assumptions to controversy. I did not find it persuasive. If players are making bad assumptions, and the GM just lets them do that, then that is a social problem and not a system problem. It’s like if someone always flips the table when there are miniatures on it. That’s not a game issue, and just not using miniatures anymore is not really the right solution.

If the publisher itself offers official rules-legit feats that lets you pick uncommon rules elements without GM input, I absolutely consider that to undermine the so-called clear notion of what rarity entails.

It’s literally in the definition of uncommon (see below, commentary mine). If you want to restrict things, make them rare (like I suggested).

Uncommon items are available only to those who have special training (i.e., feats), grew up in a certain culture, or come from a particular part of the world.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I hope you really aren't contesting a claim such as "opening the rulebook to see pages and pages of catalog listing of feats is a barrier to entry".

Cheers

If you picked up the 600+ page rulebook already... the number of feats isn't the barrier.