Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[The-Magic-Sword]

Because every single time you cast a spell, you have to consult the spell entry. Whereas in previous editions, the spell worked or didn't (or maybe did half damage). Maybe it takes 1 action, 2, or 3 actions? Maybe it changes based on the number of actions you do? It's the start of your turn, how many actions do you want to spend? You have one action left, do you have anything you can do for one action? Quick, and if you pick the wrong choice, your party will probably all suffer for it (because combats are so lethal). What are the keywords on your spell? Does the monster have resistances/immunities to that type of spell? It doesn't actually say in the monster description, I just have to know based on the type of monster it is.

Every weapon you use, consult the weapons chart to see what special qualities you unlock. In this special circumstance you can attempt to trip with it, maybe getting a bonus, maybe not. Maybe it provokes an opportunity attack? Maybe it uses an action to attempt? Maybe the creature gets a bonus based on size, number or legs, etc.? I get to compute the difficulty of the check by adding +10 to one of several other numbers, which change based on which maneuver is being performed? (I think.)

Are you frightened? That is a penalty based on your frightened rank. Or if the monster is frightened, maybe that applies to its trip DC? Or maybe it doesn't? Does it affect the damage rolled, to hit, its save DCs? Let's take a look at that.

It's not that there are rules. It's that they are spread out over 600+ pages. Everything informs the combat. Your feats, equipment, class abilities, skill training, etc.

Want to do a trip in 4e? You attack the monster's Fort defense. That's it.

I wonder why I don't really have these problems, I think its because most of this stuff is actually a known quantity, if something makes your multi attack penalty different from the norm, its because you chose it as a modular piece to add to your build. From there we expect the player to do their homework, if you don't know how it works you can't use it, so if you aren't sure, you pull it up on nethys or pathbuilder or your book while you plan your turn.

If you cast a spell with different effects, you probably have it in front of you because you were deciding to cast it between your turns, or its something you cast very frequently-- much like how in 4e, you had to figure out what defense it targeted, maybe it was a minor action, how many of your [W] dice do you have to use for this power, your basic attack may or may not use a different stat, is your power an interrupt or a reaction-- the index card approach was popular for a reason.

If something is frightened, thats actually not that hard, because you tend to know how the conditions work after playing with them for a bit (its also smack on the GM screen, if you use one, which I don't) the rules for frightened are simple, but you have to check what they are at some point.

Everything informs the combat, but you only care about the parts you already chose to take, so you probably have a pretty good idea how they work already, and took it because it does that. That's depth, not complexity-- which is the amount of work you have to do to understand a single thing. Having to reference a multi page rules explanation that tell you how to grapple is complexity, having feats, weapons, and a magic item that help you grapple better, that you took for those reasons, and need to keep in mind, is not.

 

[Retreater]

If something is frightened, thats actually not that hard, because you tend to know how the conditions work after playing with them for a bit (its also smack on the GM screen, if you use one, which I don't) the rules for frightened are simple, but you have to check what they are at some point.

Oh, believe me, when I was running PF2 I had the GM screen. And the condition cards. And the Core Rulebook. And Archives of Nethys running on a laptop. And the Roll20 compendium. Getting to a game system that could put the whole thing in around 150 pages was a pleasant departure.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Oh, believe me, when I was running PF2 I had the GM screen. And the condition cards. And the Core Rulebook. And Archives of Nethys running on a laptop. And the Roll20 compendium. Getting to a game system that could put the whole thing in around 150 pages was a pleasant departure.

Meanwhile, if I'm not sure of something, I have the answer within 10 seconds on archives of nethys, another player has already brought it up, or the player using the ability is already reading it to me. Information management is important for any game that doesn't do the work for you. I don't think you can get anything resembling the same depth in 150 pages, so its a moot point.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I realize that you were referring to Combat Expertise, not Weapon Expertise. I am not familiar with that feat. It is not on the 4e wiki. In what book did it come out?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I realize that you were referring to Combat Expertise, not Weapon Expertise. I am not familiar with that feat. It is not on the 4e wiki. In what book did it come out?

I'm talking about all of the weapon patch expertise feats, I used to give them at level 1 for free-- Light Blade Expertise should be a specific example, you needed them to fix the scaling on the math, you needed improved defenses for similar reason. You did also have something called combat advantage, which was worth +2, my swordmage got that from Wintertouched, I recall it being pretty much essential to get somehow so you didn't have to rely on all the conditions that gave it to you. Then you had something like Escalating Assault-- but notice that it only applies to basic attacks made by the Aegis of Assault power, so now you're tracking that bonus separately for those attacks as the bonus stacks up over like three rounds.

This sort of thing wasn't uncommon either, I mentioned my friends Unity Avenger with the spreadsheet? He was calculating +1 per tier (of which there were four total) per person standing next to the target of his censure of unity on damage, on top of all of his other damage bonuses, and whatever things his powers gave them, so if he used a power that struck twice, he had to double up on the calculation, and then potentially change it if he or someone else moved the following turn, while adding that to whatever the power's other effects, his magic items, and other features all added to it. But all of this applies only if there are no other enemies standing next to the avenger, in a game where movement effects were bread and butter.

Don't get me wrong, I still miss 4e sometimes, but man, it was complex and I'm pretty sure the people in this thread are glossing over it a bit-- Pathfinder 1e was no better, was generally considered worse about it.

 

[kenada]

I hear ya. After close to a year of play, I decided I just couldn't handle PF2 anymore. Honestly, it's part of the reason I'm going to OSR systems. (GMing Swords & Wizardry and playing in OSE.) I'm just burned out.

We’ve been playing for 20+ sessions now, and I still don’t feel like I have a very good grasp on skill actions. It’s keeping all the degrees of success straight. Are they really worth it? Maybe I should make better use of the Archives of Nethys GM screen, but I’d rather make an ad hoc test and determine success or failure results based on what makes sense at the table at the time.

I don't know if it would be possible to present the rules clearly based on the amount of rules there. It could be "untangled," simplified, and presented differently. I was hoping the Beginner Box would do that, but it seems that they are just presenting "all the rules" for levels 1-3.

I don’t think having a lot of crunch is a negative per se. If things are properly modularized, and the system sticks to it, then you can isolate things, so you only need to focus on what matters. If someone brings something new into play, it should slot right into the existing structures along with everything else.

For example, if someone starts playing a fighter, then they’ll be making Attacks of Opportunity, but you don’t have to memorize a whole bunch of situations where they’re prbecause it uses the standard trigger mechanism for reactions. The player just has to keep an eye on the trigger like they would any other one.

 

[RangerWickett]

I got burned out on trying to convince readers of this thread how insanely complicated and full of little rules niggles Pathfinder 2 is, if y'all are curious why I dropped out of the thread.

Now at 15th level, I am even more convinced that if Paizo aimed to create a clean clear ruleset in PF2, they failed.

Yes, at first sight the three-action system and cleaned up statistics give hope PF2 would be simpler to run than PF1.

But boy do actual play experience burn that hope to the ground. PF2 is insanely complicated and messy. Often for no discernible reason.

I feel like they did a great job coming up with ideas. Then they should have listened to playtesters who said it was too complicated.

As much as people laud the three action economy, 5e basically already has this, and it works fine. Action, move, bonus.

If I were to rework PF2, I'd give you three actions, but no more could be used for making an attack that deals damage. You would have to use the other actions to move or do stuff to affect the situation. And then, yeah, take 5e's bounded accuracy, and have fewer things that go into determining your bonuses.

 

[kenada]

Proficiency Without Level should have been the default. It doesn’t stop two moderate encounters from rolling together into something deadly, but it makes the band of viable monsters much bigger.

I’d also get rid of skill actions. Combat maneuvers can be a thing, but I’d rather leave it up to the GM to decide what success and failure look like before calling for an appropriate skill check.

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel like they did a great job coming up with ideas. Then they should have listened to playtesters who said it was too complicated.

Every time they wrote a new subsystem, be it the crafting rules, or the treat wound rules, or the rules for talismans, or how basic athletics and acrobatics work, or how you advance skill and save proficiences, or [insert just about any subsystem here]...

...they took the most cluttery and complicated route imaginable, for no discernible gain whatsoever. Meaning, wherever I look, I can easily suggest a much simpler and more straight-forward rules replacement that accomplishes the same goals with a quarter of the words and way fewer die rolls. Without even having to try very hard to write good rules.

Over and over and over.

Every single subsystem is full of niggling rules exceptions that are a pain to remember, while handing out the smallest and most restrained bonuses imaginable.

Every time a GM is about to say "yes, but" and maybe ask for a skill check to do something not explicitly allowed by the rules (such as jumping a bit longer or rolling out of the way a bit faster) it turns out that this would specifically invalidate a feat. = make that feat completely worthless, since allowing just that was literally the only thing it did. Meaning the rules actively prevent a GM from just "rolling with it".

I could take hundreds of examples but here's only one:

In almost any other game, if you want to draw your sword to fight while climbing a cliff, a GM would go "okay so you need to make a Climb check with a DC that's 5 higher" (or something). Here it's a feat. Either you have it, and then you can do it - no skill check success necessary - or you don't have it and you cannot do it at all full stop.

Being legendary at Climbing? Nope.
Having a +40 Climb modifier? Nope.
Even when the cliffside is DC 20, and you'd critically succeed even if you rolled a 1? Nope.

But being 1st level and having the Combat Climber feat? Absolutely. Without question. Under any and all circumstances.

This is ATROCIOUS game design. From a commercial perspective, I kind of see it - Pathfinder 2 is clearly set up to be able to sell as many feats in as many splatbooks as possible, covering every littlest thing and every obscure rules corner, and there are already OVER TWO THOUSAND FEATS in the game in almost as many splatbooks as 5E has produced in one sixth the timespan...

But from a games design perspective? From a generous-GM perspective? From a enabling heroism perspective? From a fun perspective?

FRAK NO
ITS ABSOLUTELY DETESTABLE

 

[CapnZapp]

If I were to rework PF2, I'd give you three actions, but no more could be used for making an attack that deals damage.

I'm sorry but that's just saying "If I were to create a game that only very superficially resembles PF2".

You don't have to play PF2 very much to realize the decision to make 1, 2 or 3 strikes is very much at the heart of the game. Your suggestion pretty much invalidates the core of the game, as well as nearly every monster with a special attack routine.

Sorry.