Pathfinder 2E PF2: Second Attempt Post Mortem

[Justice and Rule]

Let me reassure you: no, it is not only your opinion...

"but wait! there's more..."

I would not stop at "half-baked" however.

Yes, they severely over-engineer far too many subsystems. "Baking" the system another go would cut away lot of excess verbiage for sure.

But the real issue is not that they aimed for greatness, and didn't get all the way.

The real issue is that they aimed for a system with thousands of pre-determined choices. They aimed for a system that does not trust the GM. They aimed for a system where it is basically impossible to tweak anything Paizo doesn't want you to tweak.

Bake it all you want, it will never be lean, it will never be elegant, it will never be friendly and it will never be trusting.

My best way to phrasing it succinctly: Paizo reserves all the design space for itself.

Not all of you will immediately get what I mean by that, but it remains the shortest way to get to the heart of why I think PF2 is essentially a failed system.

Why are you spoilering this? Do you give away the plot to Shang-Chi in this post or something? This is literally what you always say in every thread, so why hide it?

 

[Retreater]

This is what I think it is. It's not that it's more complex (honestly it's way less), but complex in different ways. Trying to copy 5E is pointless because why play anything other than 5E at that point? Better to catch a distinct crowd, those who want something more complex than 5E but less so than 4E or 3.X. PF2, to me, sits in that sort of sweet zone, where it is closer to the balance of 4E but while still feeling like a classic d20 game.

I dunno. I think PF2 is more complex than 4E.
I often ran 4E while drunk. I can't imagine having a single beer while running PF2. That is my metric.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I dunno. I think PF2 is more complex than 4E.
I often ran 4E while drunk. I can't imagine having a single beer while running PF2. That is my metric.

Nothing but respect for that metric.

 

[Teemu]

I'm not sure I agree. I think challenges should be for trained skills. Higher proficiency ranks should be the "Don't worry, I got this" skills.

The issue is that when a character can nearly guarantee an auto success with a check, you lose the stakes. It can be awesome to be so good at something that you kind of don’t need to roll, but it gets boring after a while.

 

[Retreater]

The issue is that when a character can nearly guarantee an auto success with a check, you lose the stakes. It can be awesome to be so good at something that you kind of don’t need to roll, but it gets boring after a while.

There are certain tasks that don't need stakes: a high level rogue picking a low quality lock, for example.
In those cases, I think an "auto succuss" condition would be fine. As a GM I wouldn't even require a roll.
Hopefully by the time a high level rogue is breaking into a place, it's better protected (thus making a better challenge).

 

[Teemu]

There are certain tasks that don't need stakes: a high level rogue picking a low quality lock, for example.
In those cases, I think an "auto succuss" condition would be fine. As a GM I wouldn't even require a roll.
Hopefully by the time a high level rogue is breaking into a place, it's better protected (thus making a better challenge).

Sure, in that scenario you’ve set the stakes low. But if you do want to set the stakes high for a level 16 rogue, should the default be level 16 or level 22? What if you want them very high? Should I have to use a level 19 or a level 25 DC?

 

[Retreater]

Sure, in that scenario you’ve set the stakes low. But if you do want to set the stakes high for a level 16 rogue, should the default be level 16 or level 22? What if you want them very high? Should I have to use a level 19 or a level 25 DC?

What I suggest to every GM is to not even look at the system. If you're wanting your rogue to succeed half the time, set the DCs at 10 + the thievery skill bonus (or 15 + the bonus for harder checks). Just look at the die roll and go from there.
Most GMs don't want to admit that we don't actually need 600+ pages of rules. The publishers certainly don't want us to admit it.

 

[Staffan]

The issue is that when a character can nearly guarantee an auto success with a check, you lose the stakes. It can be awesome to be so good at something that you kind of don’t need to roll, but it gets boring after a while.

I'm perfectly OK with the main question faced by a 20th level character making a check for a skill in which they have legendary proficiency is "do I succeed, or do I crit?". There are plenty of skills in which you don't have legendary proficiency where you can have a challenging ~60% success rate.