Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[!DWolf]

I like this analogy. That’s probably also why there are a bunch of games that use 5e as a basis. Of course, that raises the question of why not build PF2 on top of 5e while still offering the kitchen sink.

I think that at one point they were considering doing just that, or rather doing both simultaneously: which is why kingmaker is getting a 5e port. Then they probably realized (in addition to the stuff you pointed out later in your comment) that developing for two different game systems simultaneously, as James Jacobs pointed out in mwangi thread, is really difficult (and difficult = expensive).

 

[kenada]

I think that at one point they were considering doing just that, or rather doing both simultaneously: which is why kingmaker is getting a 5e port. Then they probably realized (in addition to the stuff you pointed out later in your comment) that developing for two different game systems simultaneously, as James Jacobs pointed out in mwangi thread, is really difficult (and difficult = expensive).

I wasn’t even considering the double system angle. Yeah, that would have been extra crazy.

Kingmaker is also a special case. It was crowdfunded, and it’s not even a complete conversion. The add-on just gets you a 5e-compatible bestiary. You still have to convert the rest of the AP yourself.

 

[!DWolf]

Kingmaker is also a special case. It was crowdfunded, and it’s not even a complete conversion.

I stand corrected.

The add-on just gets you a 5e-compatible bestiary. You still have to convert the rest of the AP yourself.

Including kingdom building and mass combat? Ouch.

 

[dave2008]

Now suppose pathfinder had ‘learned from DND 5e’s Success’ (paraphrased) and instead stripped out almost everything that was non-essential until, like DND 5e, it was a skeleton of a structure waiting to be filled. Good right? But then you have a skeletal structure competing with a skeletal structure. And that is not a fight Paizo can win. Which is why I think it was smart to go the opposite route.

No, I got that is what you seem to think CZ is suggesting, but, IMO, that is not what CZ is suggesting.

 

[kenada]

I stand corrected.

Sorry, didn’t mean that as a correction. Where I was going is the crowd-funding helped them determine demand up front. I couldn’t see its working if they were just contracting it out without knowing that (especially if it was an unlock, stretch goal, or whatever).

Including kingdom building and mass combat? Ouch.

Yep.

 

[MockingBird]

DND 5e is like a building that has been stripped down to the essential structure. Almost everything is gone: furniture, carpets, interior walls, etc. but the structure is still intact and when a play group moves in they can install whatever they want. That is why there is a ton of DND 5e homebrew.

I dunno, id say 5e didn't strip the building down to its structure. Id say 5e built a floor plan that flows efficiently and available for many concepts. I'd say PF2e built a floor plan with many rooms with those rooms having rooms themselves.

 

[!DWolf]

No, I got that is what you seem to think CZ is suggesting, but, IMO, that is not what CZ is suggesting.

Odd...

I too find 5E lacking. What I want is 5E but with more options. An Advanced Dungeons & Dragons if you will.

That's not good enough, I'm afraid. I think the segment of the market that enjoys what PF2 is offering is small. More importantly: I think 5E has shown the gamers brought up between 2000-2015 that most of the clutter of 3E and 4E is just that. Clutter.

I believe Paizo could have gained a much larger market share if their game had exhibited any indications its team had studied and learned from 5E.

Most importantly, to reach that success, I hope and trust you and your team are studying what 5E gets right, because unfortunately I cannot find any evidence that the designers of Pathfinder 2 took even a single lesson from that game, and what made it such a success. Also, you're welcome to point your designers to this thread for examples of what sort of design not to include in your game.

Since the release of 5E, every publisher of a more complex and/or difficult game is about to find that out to their peril.

The appetite for games of 3E or 4E levels of complexity/difficulty just isn't there anymore.

ESPECIALLY on the GM/DM side of the table.

Add a rule that makes charbuild more intricate, fine. It likely affects one player, and its her choice to pick something that must be actively remembered during play.

But it's no coincidence monsters are vastly easier to run in both current games.

One significant difference between PF2 and 5E is that Paizo filled their game with lots of niggly little subsystems (lots of rolls, lots of small modifiers, lots of decision points) the GM can't easily ignore or downplay.

I'll elaborate on demand.

Pathfinder 2 comes across as a game written by people who completely and totally missed the why and how of 5th Edition and its success.

It's a game designed to compete against 3E (=PF1) and 4E. I'd say it is successful at this. But that isa sadly irrelevant unless you wind back the clock five years or so...

That is not the impression I got at all. Since I am missing it, please paraphrase what he saying (in your own opinion of course!). I know that it is awkward to do so, I personally worry that I am misrepresenting someone, but by doing so we can see where miscommunications are, especially since CapnZapp will be by shortly and can see what both of us think his arguments are and clarify what he is actually saying.

Edit: I am sorry if this post comes off as angry, one of the things that frustrates me is people telling me I am doing something wrong but not in enough detail to do anything about it, and I think it sort of leaked into the tone of this post. I am genuinely interested in what you thing CapnZapp is saying vs. what I think he’s saying vs. what he thinks he is saying.

 

[dave2008]

I am genuinely interested in what you thing CapnZapp is saying vs. what I think he’s saying vs. what he thinks he is saying.

I don't find that productive. What mattes is what CZ thinks. Maybe he will enlighten us. Just assume your right. I can live with that - I make mistakes all the time.

 

[Lefi2017]

Since the release of 5E, every publisher of a more complex and/or difficult game is about to find that out to their peril.

The appetite for games of 3E or 4E levels of complexity/difficulty just isn't there anymore.

ESPECIALLY on the GM/DM side of the table.

Add a rule that makes charbuild more intricate, fine. It likely affects one player, and its her choice to pick something that must be actively remembered during play.

But it's no coincidence monsters are vastly easier to run in both current games.

One significant difference between PF2 and 5E is that Paizo filled their game with lots of niggly little subsystems (lots of rolls, lots of small modifiers, lots of decision points) the GM can't easily ignore or downplay.

I'll elaborate on demand.

Pathfinder 2 comes across as a game written by people who completely and totally missed the why and how of 5th Edition and its success.

It's a game designed to compete against 3E (=PF1) and 4E. I'd say it is successful at this. But that is sadly irrelevant unless you wind back the clock five years or so...

This is why I still look skeptical at PF2, Jet I bought the rule buck both in English and German and back the crowdfund for the German version of AP. Willing to give it a shot but it seems to Tie the GMs Hands unnecessary after all the I read inf formus

Since none ever tells me how PF2 makes GMing easy /fast/ more convinced than 5e ?

All I read is it is great for players because choices in building which the get to do once in a while at start or level up ( if they not plan out all 20 level at the start)

and the 3 action system that makes splitting up movement into a thing of the past for example and ever minor thing is a full action like handing someone a weapon is 2-3 action assuming you hold the weapon P1 Actions: move-Handover (waiting till P2s turn) P2 take

Running one PC by the rules might be fine even if I have players that even struggle 5e`s bonuses and keep forgetting bless and other effects, so I dread for some of them constantly changing modifiers based on combat.

But a Dm running 5-8 monsters is quite a lot to keep in mind

and I see no way to run PF2 theater of the mind if the table space is too little with 6-8 players it seems heavily map focused

 

[!DWolf]

This is why I still look skeptical at PF2, Jet I bought the rule buck both in English and German and back the crowdfund for the German version of AP. Willing to give it a shot but it seems to Tie the GMs Hands unnecessary after all the I read inf formus

Since none ever tells me how PF2 makes GMing easy /fast/ more convinced than 5e ?

Some people find it easier to gm in pathfinder 2e because it gives encounter building guidelines that appropriately set the challenge for the party, has monsters with interesting abilities that make it easier to make interesting fights, has a broad set of rules that reduce the need to make rulings on the fly (some people really appreciate that!), has a mechanically defined exploration mode, and several more that I am sure I forgot.

All I read is it is great for players because choices in building which the get to do once in a while at start or level up ( if they not plan out all 20 level at the start)

While choice at creation/leveling is indeed one of the ways it is great for players, it is also great for players who like tactical play since the critical/bonus system makes combat tactics much more rewarding. Also leveling martial classes often creates more options a character can use, improving tactical play.

and the 3 action system that makes splitting up movement into a thing of the past for example and ever minor thing is a full action like handing someone a weapon is 2-3 action assuming you hold the weapon P1 Actions: move-Handover (waiting till P2s turn) P2 take

Handing a willing creature an item is only a single interact action (p 272 according to AoN it might be different in German). And splitting movement is no longer necessary as the thee action economy has interchangeable actions; no more separate attack, move, and bonus actions. Many players/gms find the system much more intuitive.

Running one PC by the rules might be fine even if I have players that even struggle 5e`s bonuses and keep forgetting bless and other effects, so I dread for some of them constantly changing modifiers based on combat.

But a Dm running 5-8 monsters is quite a lot to keep in mind

This may be an indication that PF2E is not for you. If you are looking for a simpler version of 5e - PF2E is not it. But people tend to exaggerate the math complexity on forums like this - take a listen to some actual plays to get a less distorted view of the system before you decide.

and I see no way to run PF2 theater of the mind if the table space is too little with 6-8 players it seems heavily map focused

You are right in PF2e is map focused. That being said it is perfectly possible to run it theater of the mind (though I never tried with so many players - my max was three). I would recommend the Angry GM’s article on running combat like a dolphin if you are interested in trying.