Pathfinder 2E Do you think 1st or 2nd edition is more complicated?

[CSMcFarland]

The poll needs a "They are the same picture" option.

 

[stonehead]

The poll needs a "They are the same picture" option.

Good point, I added an option for that

 

[jdrakeh]

The actual rules of 1e were, I think, more complicated. The first 2e core rulebook, however, was organized horribly and fought against the simplification of the actual rules in that regard (our group's first few sessions were a colossal PITA due to the poor organization of that book). I'm told that the later 2e core books have improved a great deal in this regard.

 

[Gecko85]

Just one persons perspective/experience, but here goes.

I played in a PF1 home campaign for over a year.

I've played PF2e for the past 3 years, but not as consistently, so I've probably got more hours in 1e than 2e.

I found PF2e much easier to Grok than PF1e, especially as I got further along in levels. Leveling up in PF2e has always been much easier for me. As for traits: I love them. They eliminate nearly all possible mis-interpretations of the rules. Makes GM-ing so much nicer.

 

[billd91]

In the end, they may be a wash as far as complexity. But in my experience with both, PF1 has a longer onramp of lower to increasing complexity than PF2 that I found a lot easier to manage.

 

[GreyLord]

I was reading this thread, and several posters there said they thought second edition was more complicated than first edition. That surprised me, because it's the exact opposite of my personal experience. I've ran Pathfinder 1 with new players, and even with levels in the double digits, most of them needed some help levelling up. I've ran Pathfinder 2 with new players, and most of them figured it out after 2 or 3 levels. The experience of actually playing at the table was similar.

Maybe my tables are outliers though. What's youre experience with the complexity of these systems?

Note: This has nothing to do with which system is better, or which system you prefer, only which one is more complicated.

Note: This is from a DM/GM perspective...

I voted 2e as more complicated, but I think it really depends on what lens you are looking through on whether that is accurate or not.

The very basic base of 2e is a lot simpler than 1e. When you add in all the powers (err...I mean...feats) which add up and the various character options and items in that manner, as well as determining the experience levels and differences, I feel it gets a LOT more complicated very quickly.

The base of 1e is a lot more complicated than 2e (with differing advances instead of a straight 1-20, how skills vary between classes, etc.), but after you get past that, it is a lot simpler with the added on extras.

I prefer the more complex base with a simpler add on. It's sort of like asking, which is more complicated, 4e or 5e. At it's heart, 4e is incredibly simple, in fact I'd say it's simpler than 5e, and with round numbers (divide by 2, every tier is by 10s), it makes it dirt easy as a basic system. However, when you add in all the powers and other additions per character and monster, it gets monstrously more complex than 5e has ever been, or what I could imagine 5e becoming. Even something like the Battlemaster is ultimately simpler at it's most complex, than a 4e character with all their at-will, encounter, dailies, feats...etc).

 

[Tigris]

Note: This is from a DM/GM perspective...

I voted 2e as more complicated, but I think it really depends on what lens you are looking through on whether that is accurate or not.

The very basic base of 2e is a lot simpler than 1e. When you add in all the powers (err...I mean...feats) which add up and the various character options and items in that manner, as well as determining the experience levels and differences, I feel it gets a LOT more complicated very quickly.

The base of 1e is a lot more complicated than 2e (with differing advances instead of a straight 1-20, how skills vary between classes, etc.), but after you get past that, it is a lot simpler with the added on extras.

I prefer the more complex base with a simpler add on. It's sort of like asking, which is more complicated, 4e or 5e. At it's heart, 4e is incredibly simple, in fact I'd say it's simpler than 5e, and with round numbers (divide by 2, every tier is by 10s), it makes it dirt easy as a basic system. However, when you add in all the powers and other additions per character and monster, it gets monstrously more complex than 5e has ever been, or what I could imagine 5e becoming. Even something like the Battlemaster is ultimately simpler at it's most complex, than a 4e character with all their at-will, encounter, dailies, feats...etc).

Yes having lots of options etc. definitly adds complexity.

Here some comparison:

• Conditions
  • PF1: 35 Conditions – d20PFSRD
  • PF2: 42 Conditions - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database
• Weapons
  • PF1: Around 80 without ammunition: Weapons – d20PFSRD
    • around 18 traits
  • PF2: 323 (maybe with ammunition) Weapons (Base) - Equipment - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database
    • around 28 traits Roll20 - Compendium and Rule Set Directory
• Common terms
  • PF1: 84: Common Terms – d20PFSRD
  • PF2: over 350 traits alone: Traits - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database
• Feats:
  • PF1: Over 2000: Common Terms – d20PFSRD
    • 1 Every 2 levels, some classes get bonus feats
  • PF2: Over 5600: Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database
    • Skill feats level 2 every 2 levels
    • General feats: Level 3 + every 4 levels
    • Ancestry feats: Level 1 every 4 levels
    • With the official variant for frre archetypes 1 Archetype feat every 2 levels.
    • (Class feats: Level 1 and every 2 levels) Can be seen as class features
• Progression:
  • PF1:
    • 3 BAB progressions
    • 2 Save progression per save (weak or strong)
  • PF2:
    • too many too count almost every class different:

 

[zakael19]

vs PF2: Fighter - Classes - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Jesus Christ. Ok yeah, I find Draw Steel! to be at the very edge of my complexity and clarity boundary, and this is beyond that.

 

[Tigris]

Jesus Christ. Ok yeah, I find Draw Steel! to be at the very edge of my complexity and clarity boundary, and this is beyond that.

Have you seen that for the fighter feats (the main class festures you get at level 1 and every even level) there is a seperate subpage? Fighter Feats - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

The main page only shows the "fixed" class features without the choices.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I've not experienced Pathfinder 1E specifically, but I have a decent amount of experience across the variety of 3.X games, and honestly I'm amazed that this is a conversation. I feel like some people may have played enough 3.X games that they just don't see the complexity the same way a new player might, and having been on both ends, I just don't see how something like PF1 couldn't be the more complicated game.

I have the same experience, PF2 rulebooks are really a huge pain, I find PF1 to be less extreme in this sense.

I think its more that people who are familiar with PF2, and its huge vocabulary and with it the huge mental load, underestimate how this is for someone who does not know all these keywords etc.

Just look at how much easier the fighter is to understand in PF1: Fighter – d20PFSRD

vs PF2: Fighter - Classes - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

I mean, this is just a difference of presentation, and I'm not even sure if it's really true.

Like, it's profoundly easy to immediately understand what someone's skill/save/attack is because it's all derived through the exact same process: Skill + Level + Attribute. You can add magic weapons or situational combat modifiers (Which I also think PF2 is less complicated on), but ultimately it's all the same. I don't have to memorize a BAB or know that the progression of saves is (Attribute+2+1/2 level) or (Attribute+1/3 level) for the off-saves. You have a bunch of bespoke systems governing these things that naturally make them more complex. DCs are the same way, which helps standardize things rather than trying to achieve realism with bespoke systems.

I would say CMD would be one of these things. We have a whole separately-derived Save only for Combat Maneuvers, while PF2 uses saves and DCs that would get regular use in the same way you would regularly use skills outside of combat: Feint is Deception against Perception DC, Grapple is Athletics against Fortitude DC, Demoralize is Intimidate against Will DC. There is a standardized way of doing things that makes players more likely to use these things because they'll be more familiar far more quickly.

Similarly, PF2 has a lot of "Take a class and skill feat" while 3.X here is "Get a bonus feat", and I would say that siloing those off is a massive decrease in complexity because not only are you avoiding the nightmare of trying to balance someone only taking skill feats or racial feats or whatever at any given level, you are also focusing players in smaller groupings instead of just having anything open.

In PF1 so normally do not have to think about drawing a weapon because you can just draw it while moving, at least from level 2 (most weapon using classes from level 1) in PF2 this always needs an action and you need to think about it. Being able to just ignore this makes it easier.

I'm sorry, but this argument is so incredibly unintuitive. You don't always "need to think about it" because you instantly know if you can do it or not: it's an action unless you have something that modifies it, and you'll know if you have that. Creating a single weird rule around something that only occurs for certain classes at a specific level is absolutely way more complicated because it's weirdly bespoke.

But more than that, the nature of the action system in PF2 makes it less complex. Things are all either 1 action, 2 actions, or 3 actions. There's no argument over why drawing a sword is a "Move Action" instead of a "Swift" action or something. You don't need to have an entire debate around whether something not covered in the book is a certain kind of action or what sort of corner cases you need to figure out when you can just say "It's fast, so 1 Action".

In PF1 there is 1 type of general opportunity action, which can be used when enemy moves out of reach, or uses an action which provokes an opportunity attack. Only 2 conditions. The one using the action should know the action and thus does know if it provokes an opportunity attack or not. This is 1 trait. "provokes opportunity action", people doing the actions need to know, especially because this is big and general rule.

I mean, this isn't even true at all.

For Shelyn's sake, look at the chart on "What provokes an attack of opportunity" from the SRD you are linking for the Fighter. This sort of chart is why they went to things like keywords, which I'll get to in the next post.

In PF2 there are several traits which can trigger an attack of opportunity. (Move action, manipulate action, ranged attack, in addition to movement). Also different classes (and monsters) can have different "opportunity attacks". Some also trigger on concentrate actions, and can even be taken with ranged attacks: Implement's Interruption - Actions - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database This is like 90% opportunity action, but not exactly. So now you must ask the person if an action has a manipulate trait, or in this other case a "concentration" trait, which they might not know, because it never came up.

"This provokes attacks of opportunities" is easier to understand and remember than traits, which by themselves do nothing (and thus you can forget), but may come up when an enemy has a specific ability.

There are plenty of triggers in PF1, the difference is that you can more easily see what could provoke a reaction given the keywords, which is why I love them: I can instantly know what will effect this. Concentrate Keyword? Okay, well the Barbarian won't be doing those in a Rage. Manipulate? That could provoke a Reaction Attack. It also helps the players find out: If I got a reaction that keys off Manipulate. This creates clarity because the player can easily figure out what things are affected versus having to adjudicate it with the GM.