Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[CapnZapp]

Which leads to the perception problem that feats, which in other editions are significant boost of power, are now just little things that keep you ever so slightly better than the bad guys.

If only that were true...

There's no such thing as having a better score than a monster, except if that monster is several levels beneath you.

Feats come across much more as things that keep you from sucking. The bonuses come across much more as keeping you on the curve, rather than making you feel awesome.

 

[CapnZapp]

Question: How well does theatre of the mind combat work in P2? Because my (admittedly limited) initial impression is that this is not a system to play without a battlemap. I find the three action economy and flanking really necessitate the grid.

I would agree with this assessment.

 

[CapnZapp]

As far as I’m aware, we both agree that Recall Knowledge is pretty awful in combat.


I think the intent is that crafting is a way to customize your character. You’re not intended to make money off of it. That’s how it can be allowed in PFS for PF2 but not for PF1. Consequently, criticizing a game for not doing what one’d like it to do isn’t really a fair criticism. However, I went looking for the posts on the official forums mentioned in your thread. I think I understand the argument, but let me try to recount it here.

The issue is Craft always uses your level, which makes it more time efficient when you are in a settlement that is lower than your level (assuming you can find tasks of the settlement’s level). This allows you to make money if you spend the same amount of time to Craft and then Earn Income that you would have spent just trying to Earn Income to pay for the remainder of the item.

For example, let’s say you want to Craft a potency rune, and you’re in a level 4 settlement. It costs 80 gp in materials plus another 80 gp to finish the item that you get from somewhere. If you choose to Earn Income prior to crafting and just pay the cost, it will take about 115 days to earn enough money. If you choose to Craft, it will take 77 days after the initial 4 days. In the remaining time (34 days), you can Earn Income and make another ~24 gp. Admittedly, that assumes you never roll a natural 1 and critically fail, which isn’t a good assumption.

While I admit that’s a problem, I think it’s the ability to make money that’s the problem not that figuring out how to do it is, and that’s because I think the intent is character customization rather than income generation. It seems like this would be a good target for errata, but I don’t see what the fix would be. It’s explicit that the task level while you Craft is your level instead of whatever task level you’d get in the current settlement. If you somehow tied it to the settlement’s level, then you’d get into weird situations where it’s better to go crafting in a cave outside of town.

Thank you for not dismissing my criticism out of hand.

Yes, the main critique is how many players that seems to think the activity/skill does things it most definitely does not. That is a sign of a too-complex ruleset if there ever was one.

You yourself is unfortunately a great example that illustrates this.

Read my lips: you can't make any money whatsoever from Crafting.

In your example, you can't just say "plus another 80 gp to finish the item that you get from somewhere".

All Crafting is, is that if you spend enough time for Earn Income to reach half the purchase price of the item, you may buy it at half price even with no Magic Shoppe in sight.

There is literally no savings to be made. You could have earned exactly the same amount, and used that money towards just buying the item.

All crafting amounts to is offering an Earn Income activity of your own level no matter where you are.

This means that if you and your friends are stuck in a backwater hovel (settlement level 3) despite being level 13, you get to effectively make money as if you could find a level 13 Earn Income Task, while your friends are likely stuck with level 3 Earn Income Tasks (give or take; this is not regulated by the CRB).

All you do is earn more money than your party allies.

That is NOT the same thing as "earning more". There is no way in PF2 to actually "earn more", to come out "ahead of the curve".

All Crafting does is ensure that you can avoid taking a hit to your downtime income while stuck in lower-levelled settlements.

The big elephant in the room is:

But why doesn't the party simply travel to a bigger settlement and take their months-long downtime there instead? Nowhere have I seen this question asked. Crafting only makes you feel you earn money when your friends suffer.

If your friends get access to the same Earn Income level as you do, perhaps by taking a vacation in Absalom, the amount you earn is identical - down to the last copper piece - to what Bob the Barbarian earns.

---

Sure, Crafting has the very real benefit of being a magic shoppe even where no actual magic items are sold. That I am not contesting. It can be a real game changer. The ability to do field repairs on shields etc is also real.

But you can't actually make money. And to gain the dubious benefit of making more money than your friends, you need lots and lots of downtime. I don't mean a week here and ten days there. I mean serious amounts of downtime.

At level 15, you might make 28 gp a day. Let's be wildly generous and round that up to 50 gp. That still means it will take you sixty-five (65!) days to craft a level-appropriate item. (Half of 6,500 gp is 3250 gp and 3250/50=65) More than two months. And remember, this example is definitely better than it will be in practical play. That kind of downtime is rare in most APs where you're on a ticking clock to save the world in time...

And if the AP has no intention of restricting magic item purchases, all Crafting does for you is provide Repairs.

---

I stand by my assessment: Crafting is a great example of a severely overengineered rules subsystem, and that Pathfinder 2 would be an objectively better game if Crafting were considerably simplified and de-cluttered.

 

[CapnZapp]

I have run many systems in which theater of the mind is default and I am good at it. And I have run multiple combat encounters in PF2e in theater of the mind with low numbers of monsters and characters (and in fact prefer to do it that way in those instances since it saves a lot of time making maps and messing with minis). The three action economy and flanking work well in theater of the mind. Movement and AoE is a little trickier but can done with good narration using environmental reference points. Because of my particular players I would hesitate to do large intricate combats without something to reference position (I don’t necessarily use a battlemap, just something so the players can know roughly where the characters are) - but it can be done. What the game won’t do is teach you how to do theater of the mind combat. Like at all. If you already pretty good at it (or work to become good at it ) and you have the correct players, then you should be able to run it theater of the mind.

At low levels maybe.

I would personally not be able to adjudicate a mid-level game in TotM given the prevalence of abilities where exact positioning is paramount.

Simplifying flanking to "you gain +2 if you're two on one" is one thing, but there's a lot of abilities that depend on being in exactly the right square. And TotM would likely severely nerf the benefit of a high Speed - in Pathfinder 2, having Speed 35 often lets you reach just the right square in one Stride, where a Speed 25 character needs two Strides. The reality is that loads of feats and monster abilities would fall by the wayside.

I have nothing against TotM. I would just choose a game better suited to it. There are indeed many systems where ToTM is default.

Within the D&D sphere, however, I would be hard pressed to find an edition worse suited to TotM than Pathfinder 2. Just about the only edition I can think of needs the battle map more would be 4E.

 

[jmartkdr2]

snip

All crafting amounts to is offering an Earn Income activity of your own level no matter where you are.

snip

---

I stand by my assessment: Crafting is a great example of a severely overengineered rules subsystem, and that Pathfinder 2 would be an objectively better game if Crafting were considerably simplified and de-cluttered.

I think this was on purpose: crafting shouldn't result in greater income than other Earn Income options. If crafting paid more/was more profitable, all the other choices become trap options. It's not better because they don't want it to be better.

I will not be arguing that it isn't overly fiddly, but the fact that it doesn't do what is was specifically design to not do isn't a sign of bad design.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm not sure if I agree with your breakdown. For example, let's take General Feats category. The feats in 5e were intentionally designed to contain larger blocks of features than what existed prior in 3e and 4e, so I don't think that translating 1-for-1 works as simply as you make it out.

Yes. Exactly. 5e has fewer feats, and the feats are much larger, encompassing 3 or 4 PF2 feats.

From my understanding and experience of the PF2, those increments matter for a lot of checks where critical success and failure exists as possibilities. It may not be psychologically satisfying to only get a +1 bonus if you are used to larger bonuses in 5e (e.g., +5, Advantage, etc.), but that does not mean that a +1/+2 is not a meaningful bonus in the context of PF2.

Again, yes and no. Mathematically, +1/+2 is a meaningful bonus for something that you do regularly in PF2 (though I agree that it often does not feel meaningful from a psychological perspective).

Like mathematically, a +1/+2 on your grappling check on a grappler character that is going to attempt to grab people on most combats is mechanically worthwhile.

The less often a small bonus comes into play, the less worthwhile it becomes. How often do emotion effects come into play? If they come into play once every 5 sessions, do you really feel like a Forlorn elf because you got a +1 when it came up? (and other non-elves in the party have higher bonuses anyway because of class/attribute distribution).

 

[CapnZapp]

I think this was on purpose: crafting shouldn't result in greater income than other Earn Income options. If crafting paid more/was more profitable, all the other choices become trap options. It's not better because they don't want it to be better.

The other options aren't trap options since you don't take Acrobatics or Nature or whatever to earn income. The ability to use a skill to earn a bit of coin is entirely secondary to every skill.

Except crafting, where it is not unreasonable for a player to expect it is the primary reason to take the skill.

If crafting was actually profitable (relative to other choices) it would still mean a character would have to forgo another skill to take it. And if you could still make maybe 90% as much gold even without it, that hardly registers as a "trap".

Especially since we're talking pitiful small amounts here. You earn more in a single day of typical adventuring than you earn in months of downtime.

I get a distinct vibe where Paizo started off by saying "let's not repeat the mistakes of PF1" and then completely forgot to sanity-check that goal as other rules congealed. Somebody should have said "wait a second. Now that we're nearly done with our game don't you see that making even twice as much money as Earn Income doesn't break the balance one bit!". Shame I seem to be one of the first people to do so...

I will not be arguing that it isn't overly fiddly, but the fact that it doesn't do what is was specifically design to not do isn't a sign of bad design.

This argument again.

Yes, it does do "what it was designed to do".

Except it doesn't.

I don't believe for a second that there was intent for any of the following things, all of which is what it does do:
... Crafting should require stupid long downtime to achieve anything
... Crafting should encourage crafters to persuade their friends to stick around in backwater hovels, since that's the only place where you "earn" any money
... Crafting should involve lots of niggly calculations, and juggling formulas, feats and what not - basically for zero gain

It is bad design alright.

The mere fact you can't break the game's economy using it, is a very low bar to clear.

Specifically, item pricing is exponential in this game. You basically can never afford an item above your level. Even if Crafting actually made you some money it would not break the economy in the slightest.

Give a character 20% more wealth "than intended" and see what she can break. Or even double the "intended" wealth. Go on, I dare you.

You will find that the character can still not purchase anything more powerful than before. And she could already buy loads of low-level stuff. The fact the character can now purchase five minor items instead of just four is hardly game-breaking. The fact she could instead save up and get hold of an item maybe one single level earlier than otherwise is... nothing to worry about in the slightest!

I would say just about the only "benefit" of the incredibly cluttered design is that it is so opaque and byzantine that lots of players still genuinely believe you can use the rules to make actual money...

A design like "you can craft an item or items up to your character level before each [insert time unit here]" would accomplish pretty much exactly the same thing, just in one sentence rather than pages and tables and calculations and DCs and rolls....

That's my 2 cents, anyhow.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I think this was on purpose: crafting shouldn't result in greater income than other Earn Income options. If crafting paid more/was more profitable, all the other choices become trap options. It's not better because they don't want it to be better.

I think this post, more than anything, shows why you like PF2 and why I dislike it. (No judgment about people liking different things).

If a player’s background is that he was a blacksmith before adventuring, or that he is a priest of the god of blacksmiths, he should be really good at it. Maybe you’re better at building arms and equipment for you and your party (provided sufficient downtime). Great! That is what makes your character special.

Maybe another character’s schtick is that he is a sage. He’ll instead find something in his research that will be useful or interesting.

I find that the brewer, the performer and the blacksmith all make the same amount of money during two weeks’ of downtime (unless someone rolls a crit or fails) hurts verisimilitude more than the blacksmith outfitting the team if he has time to build stuff.

The whole question seems moot anyway. Most adventures that I have played or DMed have very little downtime, and even when there was downtime, the characters better things to do than practise a profession.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The other options aren't trap options since you don't take Acrobatics or Nature or whatever to earn income. The ability to use a skill to earn a bit of coin is entirely secondary to every skill.

Except you can't normally earn income with those, and when you do, it's at a significant penalty. The comparable are Lore and Performance - both of which have fewer external uses than crafting.

Except crafting, where it is not unreasonable for a player to expect it is the primary reason to take the skill.

If crafting was actually profitable (relative to other choices) it would still mean a character would have to forgo another skill to take it. And if you could still make maybe 90% as much gold even without it, that hardly registers as a "trap".

If crafting makes more money that all the other options, all other options becomes trap options.

Especially since we're talking pitiful small amounts here. You earn more in a single day of typical adventuring than you earn in months of downtime.

Well you're supposed to be adventuring... when you can pick between the two.

What is the correct amount of downtime between adventures?

I get a distinct vibe where Paizo started off by saying "let's not repeat the mistakes of PF1" and then completely forgot to sanity-check that goal as other rules congealed. Somebody should have said "wait a second. Now that we're nearly done with our game don't you see that making even twice as much money as Earn Income doesn't break the balance one bit!". Shame I seem to be one of the first people to do so...

"Not breaking the game" isn't the only goal. If it was, they'd remove all the fiddly bits like feats and magic. The goal is to make all the reasonable options (like not being a crafter) about even in overall output. If crafting is demonstrably better at earning income, then balance has not been achieved.

This argument again.

Yes, it does do "what it was designed to do".

Except it doesn't.

I don't believe for a second that there was intent for any of the following things, all of which is what it does do:
... Crafting should require stupid long downtime to achieve anything
... Crafting should encourage crafters to persuade their friends to stick around in backwater hovels, since that's the only place where you "earn" any money
... Crafting should involve lots of niggly calculations, and juggling formulas, feats and what not - basically for zero gain

Now I think you're being disinginuous - you know full well they didn't set those as goals. They decided they were acceptable costs for making sure they achieved balance in downtime options.

It is bad design alright.

The mere fact you can't break the game's economy using it, is a very low bar to clear.

Once again: "Not breaking the game" isn't the only goal.

Specifically, item pricing is exponential in this game. You basically can never afford an item above your level. Even if Crafting actually made you some money it would not break the economy in the slightest.

Give a character 20% more wealth "than intended" and see what she can break. Or even double the "intended" wealth. Go on, I dare you.

It will mean my non-crafter character has 20% fewer consumables - is it worthwhile to ensure that every character feels the need to take crafting so they have 20% more hp in their reserve pool?

You will find that the character can still not purchase anything more powerful than before. And she could already buy loads of low-level stuff. The fact the character can now purchase five minor items instead of just four is hardly game-breaking. The fact she could instead save up and get hold of an item maybe one single level earlier than otherwise is... nothing to worry about in the slightest!

But they can purchase more stuff, which adds up.

I would say just about the only "benefit" of the incredibly cluttered design is that it is so opaque and byzantine that lots of players still genuinely believe you can use the rules to make actual money...

And game balance.

A design like "you can craft an item or items up to your character level before each [insert time unit here]" would accomplish pretty much exactly the same thing, just in one sentence rather than pages and tables and calculations and DCs and rolls....

That's my 2 cents, anyhow.

If they could do that in a balanced way, I agree that would be better.

But I categorically reject the idea that "Crafting should be better than Lore skills." I want downtime options to be balanced against each other. And more low-level items adds up, so just capping the strongest item you can make is only halfway balancing - and being balanced half the time is not really balanced.

 

[kenada]

I stand by my assessment: Crafting is a great example of a severely overengineered rules subsystem, and that Pathfinder 2 would be an objectively better game if Crafting were considerably simplified and de-cluttered.

If I’m parsing this right, we seem to more or less agree on the customization aspect.

I had a big response typed up, and then I deleted it. While I wanted to agree that Craft was fiddly, I couldn’t agree that being fiddly meant it was complex. I mean, rolling a lot sucks, but it’s straight forward, right? However, rolling a lot also means you’re rolling to failure. That would make using Earn Income to finish off an item a trap option, which is out of place in a system that tries to avoid trap options.

Okay, I’ll concede that Craft is poorly written (or not clear, which is a problem endemic to PF2). I’m not inclined to change it as much as you did in your alternate rules. I think I’ll just have the crafter pick how much longer they want to work, roll once, get your additional credit, and then pay the difference out of pocket. That brings it closer to Earn Income (where you roll once for a period of work), gets rid of the bookkeeping, and eliminates roll to failure.

You still can’t make money from crafting (except in a theoretical sense compared to your friends), but I’m fine with that. I think we’ll have to agree to disagree on that aspect.