Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[CapnZapp]

Just be mindful of how PF2 works.

The bonuses for leveling up outshine every other thing you might want to spend money on, so I'd say using the proficiency without level variant is damn close to mandatory if you still want treasure to have meaning. In a xp for gold game, I mean.

Of course if you plan to hand out no treasure (maybe you'll also use the static bonuses automatic bonus progression variant?) or if you're cool with the heroes selling all loot always (to purchase levels instead), then you're fine.

Just don't expect a 5E (or 2E etc)-like experience where if you add a functional magic item economy (in the vein of 3E or PF2) you can still have heroes buy items and keep the ones they loot 'cause they're sufficiently awesome to compete with levels for the adventurers' attention.

 

[kenada]

I’d say in that case Automatic Bonus Progression is probably a better remedy than Proficiency Without Level. However, I don’t think it’s a given that you have to exchange your treasure to receive XP. I know that’s what Arneson did, and that seems to be why it’s popular, but I know that’s not how B/X worked (not familiar with OD&D or AD&D, so not sure about those). B/X gave you XP just for bringing back treasure from an adventure, and treasure was defined not to include magic items.

That’s how I plan to handle it in PF2 (like B/X). Doing it that way seems quite compatible with the system’s expectations, which includes an expected amount of currency per level. It’s easy enough to track how much treasure the party brings back and award the XP once they do. The only tweak I’m making is to use a different conversion rate (1.6:1) to fit it in better with the XP curve I use (which was already non-standard).

 

[Thomas Shey]

AIUI in 1e and OD&D, you get a lot less XP for fighting the dragon than you do for carting off its treasure. Which is a perfectly fine idea if you want to encourage and reward a playstyle that avoids fighting wherever possible. But they never bothered to explain at the time what playstyle they were aiming at.

_
glass.

More accurately, I think they were kind of conflicted in how they present it; they mention as examples a lot of different fictional characters, only a small number of whom are of the kind they actually are expecting, then expect some mixture of Fantasy F***ing Vietnam and pseudo-medieval caper story.

Unsurprisingly, most people progressively didn't play the way the game was really designed around.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’d say in that case Automatic Bonus Progression is probably a better remedy than Proficiency Without Level. However, I don’t think it’s a given that you have to exchange your treasure to receive XP. I know that’s what Arneson did, and that seems to be why it’s popular, but I know that’s not how B/X worked (not familiar with OD&D or AD&D, so not sure about those). B/X gave you XP just for bringing back treasure from an adventure, and treasure was defined not to include magic items.

At least OD&D seemed to do it that way, too.

That’s how I plan to handle it in PF2 (like B/X). Doing it that way seems quite compatible with the system’s expectations, which includes an expected amount of currency per level. It’s easy enough to track how much treasure the party brings back and award the XP once they do. The only tweak I’m making is to use a different conversion rate (1.6:1) to fit it in better with the XP curve I use (which was already non-standard).

The usual problem in OD&D was always what to do with all the gold if you weren't on board the whole saving-up-for-a-stronghold wagon or equivalent.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I’m also running in a homebrew setting, but I completely replaced all of the core ancestries with my own. It started out as a non-D&D fantasy setting, and I wasn’t going to change that for PF2. Doing my own thing with ancestries has let me avoid the Golarion-isms in the default ones. My biggest source of pain is clerics. If you’re not using or reskinning the Golarion pantheon, you have your work cut out for you.

Not that I’m trying to rope you into that other thread that has devolved into pointless bickering, but where do you stand on player input on ancestries?

I have to admit that one of the pain points for me in PF2 is certain race/class combinations (dwarf sorcerers for instance) starting with a 14 in the main stat unless I take “voluntary” penalties to two other stats.

 

[kenada]

The usual problem in OD&D was always what to do with all the gold if you weren't on board the whole saving-up-for-a-stronghold wagon or equivalent.

Fortunately, PF2 has ample ways to spend treasure.

 

[kenada]

Not that I’m trying to rope you into that other thread that has devolved into pointless bickering, but where do you stand on player input on ancestries?

Is this the thread that started with a pitch for a GoT-ish D&D campaign? I think I have my two cents there and haven’t really looked back.

For my setting, the ancestries that are available are what’s available. There is some influence from past campaigns and what players did, and I have changed one (vuple) to align more with what the player wanted from the ancestry. I provisionally have allowed some core options (see below), but the answer is generally no.

I don’t allow any Lost Omens content. I provisionally allow some core content. You can be a yuma or elven half-orc, and flexible heritages are allowed for most ancestries. There are a few core ancestries (goblins, kobolds, orcs) I have considered adapting, but it would take some work, and my backlog is already big enough.

The setting got its start when I was running Open Legend. Since that is a generic system, I was free to do whatever—had to do whatever. It reflects a lot of influence from JRPGs (particularly FF XIV) as well as Sanderson (Stormlight Archive), Vance (Dying Earth, particularly Rhialto the Marvellous), and mecha anime (Simoun, some Darling in the Franxx). It’s also worth mentioning Konosuba! for its influence on yuman religion.

I have to admit that one of the pain points for me in PF2 is certain race/class combinations (dwarf sorcerers for instance) starting with a 14 in the main stat unless I take “voluntary” penalties to two other stats.

I’m working on a revision to my ancestries that drops ability flaws. I think Paizo should have done the same for PF2. It a throwback that’s unnecessary. You can build around it, but it feels needlessly punitive.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Fortunately, PF2 has ample ways to spend treasure.

My bard/champion quite concurs.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Is this the thread that started with a pitch for a GoT-ish D&D campaign? I think I have my two cents there and haven’t really looked back.

No, it’s a thread that began with “Why do people like to play weird (ie non-core 4) races?” and devolved into a conflict between more-GM centric and more-Player centric playstyles.

It got so bad, I’m taking refuge in the thread between PF2-lovers and PF2-haters.

I’m working on a revision to my ancestries that drops ability flaws. I think Paizo should have done the same for PF2. It a throwback that’s unnecessary. You can build around it, but it feels needlessly punitive.

I agree with you.

Edit: Thanks for the .pdf.

 

[Thomas Shey]

No, it’s a thread that began with “Why do people like to play weird (ie non-core 4) races?” and devolved into a conflict between more-GM centric and more-Player centric playstyles.

Its apparently in the air this week.

It got so bad, I’m taking refuge in the thread between PF2-lovers and PF2-haters.

Heh. I have to admit I'd not have expected to be as fond of PF2e as I am. I'm not normally all that attached to games in the D&D-sphere, and its probably all of one of three I'd consider running (PF1e is not one of the other one, since it appears like a decorated version of D&D 3e to me).