Pathfinder 2E Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?

[dave2008]

Sadly, I feel like some of these other elements actually damage what make Pathfinder 2e desirable at all, like reductions in player choices. That would start giving it some of the flaws of OSR games and the like, which my players are pretty explicitly against doing as a 'main' thing (though they'd be happy to try a little DCC on the side, which should be fun.)

The point is not to replace PF2, but have an option for different play. Similar, but in the opposite direction, to what EnWorld is doing with LevelUp for 5e. It would take anything away from PF2, just add a different way of doing it.

 

[dave2008]

If Paizo actively supported proficiency without level (as the GMG variant rule is called) by publishing Bestiaries with everything (p)recalculated, that would indeed be awesome!

A pipe dream, I know.

A more realistic approach would be asking Nethys and Easytools (et al) to implement a checkbox for a global setting (somewhat like you can choose light or dark skin here on Enworld - a setting that affects all pages but otherwise changes nothing), instantly recalculating all the relevant monster info on their web pages.

That would be awesome. I think that change alone solves a lot of problems I have with PF2 and monsters.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The point is not to replace PF2, but have an option for different play. Similar, but in the opposite direction, to what EnWorld is doing with LevelUp for 5e. It would take anything away from PF2, just add a different way of doing it.

No offense, this might be jumping the gun when we're discussing a game you've mentioned not yet having played, in practice, Pathfinder 2e might play a lot more like what you're looking for it to be than you might expect. Some people (like Zapp) insist there's a mountain of clutter, but honestly the game is only marginally more complex than 5e and the systems for the game all work very well in concert. You should try it sometime!

 

[payn]

I dont really get the clutter arguments. I know level 1 has a daunting amount of choices, but after that its really just choose 1 of 3 options every level after that.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I dont really get the clutter arguments. I know level 1 has a daunting amount of choices, but after that its really just choose 1 of 3 options every level after that.

Yeah honestly, especially since everything works on such unified systems that the game itself is relatively simple to understand, you just have a lot of configurations of those basic mechanics to explore and enjoy to represent different things in your adventures.

 

[Teemu]

PF2 Easytools does have a toggle for proficiency without level. It changes creature stats as expected.

I understand that there is a game that’s somewhere between 5e and PF2 in complexity or clutter. Level Up could be that. Personally 4e is that for me. But Paizo selling that as a product? They’re supposed to produce PF2, Starfinder, and PF2 “Essentials”? I don’t find that a feasible business model. I honestly don’t think that this version would find a big enough of a niche to sustain an entire product line—because 5e exists already, and its success proves that the masses don’t need anything more complex.

Would I personally enjoy a game somewhere between PF2 and 5e? Yes, and I do right now with 4e D&D. But I don’t think it’s the right business decision for Paizo. Not now at least. Maybe in 5 years? Really hard to tell.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Since all the options are already available online, Paizo could develop 'essentials' characters, where they're fully Pathfinder 2e characters, but presented as a preset build path, ergo, instead of getting a choice of class feats at level 2, 4, etc you would just get something at that level decided by someone at paizo (or really, any of us online who can build characters with speed.) It would be fully compatible with Pathfinder 2e, and mirror essentials, but without actually adding different options (you don't need to circumvent a power system like 4e did, you'd just avoid feats that add too much complexity to the character.)

In other words, a player could be a Fighter (Knight), and that would just mean they're a fighter with a bunch of preselected feats curated to emulate a knight, it would make the presentation equivalent to 4e essentials / 5e, you'd just get a pre-selection of feats that make your fighter into a knight, instead of looking through all the options yourself.

Heck, the community could do this, fairly easily.

 

[meltdownpass]

All right, to get back to @Retreater original premiss, what would an "Essentials" PF2 look like? Or more importantly (to me), what would I want to see?

1. Streamline rules and less of them: From what I hear, this is pretty well taken care of in the beginner's box. So I think we already have that checked (I just want all the change in one book).
2. A reduction of feats. To keep this balanced what I am thinking is combining feats into larger feats. So instead of a fighter & skill feat at lvl 2 & 4; you get a fighter feat (a combined feat) at lvl 2 and a skill feat (a combined feat) at level 4, or something similar. I might get rid of ancestery feats all together (maybe keep one, and make most of these to your initial ancestry/sub ancestry, or background choice. Ideally I would like half as many feat choices max.
3. Simplified classes. I want mean is less reliance on tactical choices. My players are not tactically minded and they just want simple mechanics. Not sure how to do this one.
4. Remove the martial reliance on striking runes (this may not be backward compatible). I am think of how "basic" attacks progressed in damage as you leveled up. I think this is in the GMG maybe? But I would prefer it was backed in.
5. I would like to get rid of the +1/level. I know this is in the GMG, but I would like it to be the default and monsters already calculated this way. I realize this is not backwards compatible, but this is my wishlist.

I'm on board with all of this.

1. Streamline rules: I have no idea what is in the beginners box, but I did want to call out that I find the copy of PF2 noticeably poor as rules text. In many cases the rules text itself could easily be rewritten to be less verbose and better communicate intent. The most accessible rules writing style tends to use short declarative sentences, bolded keywords, and structures such as lists. PF2 rules text would benefit from adopting some of these conventions.
2. Reduction of Feats: Absolutely. I recently decided to rebuild a character from the ground up. A level 10 character with the simplest possible rules still has to make ~40-50 decisions. About 30 of those are feats, and there are literally hundreds of feats. As a player when I make a decision for a character, I want that decision to describe a significant characteristic that expresses itself through roleplay and mechanics, not a +1 bonus to Performance checks during night-time dance festivals under a full moon.
3. Simplified Classes: This one is a little vague. The broader point of too much design being driven by the tactical miniatures boardgame seems apt to me.
4. Striking Rune Removal: Yes. Big mistake to put any kind of more-or-less mandatory math bump as a magic item to begin with.
5. Remove +1/Lvl: Never going to happen, but it would be nice.

 

[dave2008]

No offense, this might be jumping the gun when we're discussing a game you've mentioned not yet having played, in practice, Pathfinder 2e might play a lot more like what you're looking for it to be than you might expect. Some people (like Zapp) insist there's a mountain of clutter, but honestly the game is only marginally more complex than 5e and the systems for the game all work very well in concert. You should try it sometime!

I tried to when it came out. My group (which I DM) is enjoying 5e to much to try something else (I asked), so I looked for another group. I couldn't find any in may area. I tried for a few months and then covid hit. Until I am back to in person playing I am stuck discussing it on message boards.

 

[dave2008]

I dont really get the clutter arguments. I know level 1 has a daunting amount of choices, but after that its really just choose 1 of 3 options every level after that.

The clutter argument is not really about how many choices from what I have read. It stems primarily from two things:

1. The CRB is not very user friendly and has bits and pieces all over. It is literally cluttered. This I agree with. If I get a chance to play PF2 I will definitely start with the beginner's box as everyone says it is more streamlined. And...
2. Rules for everything and in some peoples opinion to many or ill conceived rules. So the clutter is number off or fiddly nature of rules and bits and pieces. This is of course an opinion and taste thing to some degree.