Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[The-Magic-Sword]

Yup, I think 2e actually threads the needle very well in having meaningful character building, while avoiding the extreme power variation that could be such a problem in other games. I'll add that I don't really buy into 'munchkinry' as an unrepentant bad, nor do I think games should view systems that encourage such play as tainted. We like building characters, discussing the effectiveness of different options, hoping for options that let us accomplish certain mechanical goals, and contrasting the costs and benefits of different builds at my table.

Having a system that rewards that, while limiting its negative consequences the way PF2e has really enhanced our game quite a bit, I remember that in 5e we just had stupendously major variations in power-- its an easily broken system and the main defense it seems to have is the social pressure of being told you're playing wrong whenever someone decides you need to be taken down a peg, I have players who are still carrying baggage from their first 5e groups punishing them for being effective, even though that effectiveness was the bog-standard, obvious Paladin build path applied unintentionally to a game where the GM had no problem with the five minute workday.

On the subject of 'choice paralysis' other people have covered it well, in terms of it not being as large a problem as it seems, but I'll also note that in some ways, that's more of a personal problem than a systemic one. Making choices quickly is a skill you can improve at, I'm reminded of Chidi Anagonye from the good place. Framing it as a skill for players to improve in, is in my opinion, the least amount of damage done to the fun of any player at the table, as a solution to the issue.

 

[dave2008]

to me (and I suspect others), feats are a kind of mechanical prompt. Not intended to restrict the player from interacting within the world, but to help inform and create. in my interpretation, you can try it, but with a feat, you will likely do it better than someone without it. Reading it like this does not break the game at all.

This is interesting to me as this is the same argument people made (both yours and CapnZ's) about powers in 4e. Some claimed they restricted player choice and others said they were a starting point. You know what, they were both correct then and you and CapnZ are both correct now.

Different people play differently.

 

[dave2008]

If people hate having mechanically meaningful character options, there's not much useful to say to them if you don't agree.

Yep, personally I like feats over ASI any day (we use feats only - no ASI in my current 5e game). However, I do prefer the fewer big feats (5e) vs many small feats (PF2) model. Funny thing is, I would have said just the opposite until I got the PF2e core rulebook! PF2 has kinda turned me off the idea of micro-feats.

 

[dave2008]

Yup, I think 2e actually threads the needle very well in having meaningful character building, while avoiding the extreme power variation that could be such a problem in other games.

In general I agree with. PF2 has done an incredible job of providing a lot of choices while keeping everything extremely balanced. The only thing open to interpretation really is: are all the choices, individually, meaningful. I think that is more subject to personal viewpoint and debate.

I would personally like is fewer, but larger/ more meaningful choices, while maintaining the incredible balance of PF2.

Now that I say that, I am guessing that is more difficult than it sounds.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, personally I like feats over ASI any day (we use feats only - no ASI in my current 5e game). However, I do prefer the fewer big feats (5e) vs many small feats (PF2) model. Funny thing is, I would have said just the opposite until I got the PF2e core rulebook! PF2 has kinda turned me off the idea of micro-feats.

There's always room to argue where the line lands when it comes to fine distinctions. Personally, as I said upthread, I don't think PF2e overdoes, because of the way it siloes feats; most of the time the vast majority of feats in the game are irrelevant to your current play experience because they're associated with a class, ancestry or skill you don't have.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yep, personally I like feats over ASI any day (we use feats only - no ASI in my current 5e game). However, I do prefer the fewer big feats (5e) vs many small feats (PF2) model. Funny thing is, I would have said just the opposite until I got the PF2e core rulebook! PF2 has kinda turned me off the idea of micro-feats.

There are definitely certain feats where I wish they had just made them class flavor features instead. In particular, the classic monk powers are ones that I wish were just part of the class rather than being feats, as they are cool perks but often compete with more useful stuff.

And holy naughty word, 5E's decision to force a choice between ASIs and Feats was one of the things that hit me so hard in PF2. I hated that choice because it's a terrible choice to make: a +1 in a major stat can be really important and good... but certain feats are also incredibly useful. And you only get a few of them, which makes it incredibly difficult sometimes to make that decision. One of the first things I did as a GM was just let my players select a free feat at first level (meaning yes, variant humans would potentially get two feats at first level) and generally handed them out at 5-10-15-20.

Like, the concept for feats in 5E is really strong and some of the feats really nail what you want out of that: Great Weapon Master, Sharpshooter, Alert, Sentinel, Shield Master, Polearm Master, Mobile... really most of the ones dealing with weapons are good. The problem is that there are some really lame ones in there as well which could be cool: Keen Mind, Actor, Linguist, Charger, etc... I would love a full review of all the feats to even them out a bit and just make them all solid, rather than having so much variance between them. I think it's doable, too, but I basically stopped trying to mod 5E when I actually decided to look up PF2.

(God, I had so much material for a fighter rebuild and now I just don't even need to look at it anymore because PF2 does exactly what I want with the class).

 

[MerricB]

I see there are two arguments about feats...

• When performing Character Creation, you only see a small portion of the feats, so it is manageable.
• When running the game, you have to keep in mind all the rules hidden away within the feats, which is not so manageable.

Cheers!

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not sure how many of you are actually defending Pathfinder 2 and how many of you that just need to be contrary.

Let me just say I am happy to see that some of you see my points, and that even on the otherwise so obdurate Paizo forums there's starting to pop up threads daring to question the design decisions made!

In summary,

• Some balance is certainly good, but the way Paizo locked down this game is ridiculous
• Players are given massive (charbuild) choice where it doesn't matter, and almost no choice where it does matter
• The fate of 4th edition should have given Paizo a clear signal to avoid any similarities to that game, yet PF2 clearly embraces dangerously many of the things people loathed about that game
• The fate of 5th edition should have given Paizo a clear signal to embrace its design philosophy wherever possible while still resulting in a game with its own identity, yet it's hard to find even a single clear 5E influence in the CRB
• Far too many PF2 subsystems are massively overdesigned. (A common occurence among amateurish rpg systems where the designer forgets his or her rule needs to work in conjunction with everything else without demanding too much time and attention)
• Far too many build elements are too insignificant
• Far too many build elements are too conditional
• Paizo takes the right to invade the smallest rules space, setting up a clear conflict with GMs who want to smooth off the rough edges, and boy, does Pathfinder 2 have edges that are rough

I won't repeat myself in this post, but rest assured that if you trawl through my posts I believe I have provided illustrative examples to back up each and every one of these claims.

Don't get me wrong, Pathfinder 2 does the core job of providing fun challenging combat that flows reasonably fast, and it did fix the #1 reason I had to abandon d20 (the effort needed to create NPCs) so it's not a hopeless system.

It just does so in spite of itself. Nearly everything that isn't the fun challenging combat is the opposite of easy, simple, generous and fast.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, one more thing PF2 does right and where it is clearly superior to 5th Edition:

Utility-based magic item pricing.

In 5E, gold is essentially worthless once you leave tier 1 or so (because now you can afford to purchase the finest food, clothing, wine & women, etc). The inexplicable nature of adventures still awarding you thousands of gold for completing adventures, even though there is no longer anything play groups uninterested in downtime (something exactly zero adventures focus on) can use it for, is something WotC has to its shame never acknowledged, even six years after the game's release.

 

[xoth.publishing]

And holy naughty word, 5E's decision to force a choice between ASIs and Feats was one of the things that hit me so hard in PF2. I hated that choice because it's a terrible choice to make: a +1 in a major stat can be really important and good... but certain feats are also incredibly useful. And you only get a few of them, which makes it incredibly difficult sometimes to make that decision.

Tough choice, that sounds like a good thing?