This might be a tangent from the original conversation, but I'm curious what a PF2 (or any other system) that would be a "great step forward" would look like. Are we looking at something like EN's Advanced 5e?
Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?
CapnZapp
Legend
Yes, thank you.
Pathfinder 2 is built upon an acceptance of 3E or 4E levels of complexity.
But this should not be taken for granted. Not after the year 2015.
The question Paizo and its fans need to answer: "does D&D need to be this complicated?"
CapnZapp
Legend
I don't have a good answer to this, but wanted to thank you - by reading I remembered I should probably reiterate I'm playing (games mastering) PF2 as we speak.
So it's not that I'm saying PF2 is unplayable or lacks value. I am certainly capable of handling it's complexity.
I am, however, finding the game much more complicated than it needs to be, as far as I can see. It would have been simply a better game if it shed some of its more egregiously byzantine subsystems.
I can only answer for my group and give a completely non-committal answer: "it depends." I have a group that loves 5e, another that is playing OSR, and another that is trying PF2. Each have different desires.
My PF2 group enjoys the power fantasy. They like experimenting with different builds, amassing magic items, engaging in frantic and dangerous combat with powerful monsters with exciting abilities. 5e and OSR don't really do any of that.
My wife, who largely came into the hobby with 5e, finds 5e terribly boring and would prefer 4e or PF2. OSR style puts her out of her comfort zone (testing the player vs. the character) while 5e is a boring "roll to hit, do damage" cycle against limitless bags of hit points.
I think that PF2 has a place in the industry. Unfortunately, many of their player base are the fans who came to them because they didn't want to purchase new books, didn't want to learn a new system. Thus, they have alienated probably greater than half their fans. Which is a shame because it's a solid system that improves on PF1, IMO.
Aldarc
Legend
D&D like games, including 5e, have traditionally leaned towards fairly rules heavy compared to many games out there. So it's basically just arguing which variety of gallon-pack chocolate ice cream has the most calories. I don't think that the crunch level though particularly matters as if enjoyment was simply a rote factor of relative crunch level. What matters is whether the crunch of the game serves the purpose of the sort of games you enjoy playing.
dave2008
Legend
Because a lot of people are coming into the TTRPG through 5e. I would say that comparison is more relevant than to PF1 and definitely more relevant then 4e.
Bravesteel25
Baronet of Gaming
I don't see PF2 as being overly more complex than 5E, but it does have much greater depth.
billd91
Not your screen monkey (he/him)
My experience differs a great deal. PF2 is considerably more complex than 5e, and that works for some people.
LotsOfLore
Villager
This. And like somebody else said, if the complexity leads to more fun, then it's not a burden, it's all gold.
Last edited:
LotsOfLore
Villager
How is it "considerably" more complicated? What is it that you find so complicated in pf2 to describe the entire game as so much more complicated than 5e?
Similar Threads
