FrozenNorth
Hero
For the record, depending on how many skills you are trained in, that could easily be choosing between 15 skill feats each time you receive a new skill feat. And, as I mentioned, that number is growing as new books come out.
Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2
CapnZapp
Legend
No you never choose between two thousand choices, but that's hardly the point.
I feel the number speaks for itself.
CapnZapp
Legend
Browsing through half a dozen books to find those feats that you qualify still means dismissing dozens and dozens of feats.
When you say you only have four feats to choose from, you will already have completed a hefty sorting task that should not be ignored.
Even feats you can't choose still count towards the brain power you need to spend, after all.
This is actually a great illustration of why you basically need the app...
Philip Benz
A Dragontooth Grognard
Yeah, that sounds about right. I've just started playing a rogue with a high INT and he has all but 3-4 skills (not counting lores) as trained right at 1st level.
But of those 15 or so choices, I find you can narrow it down very quickly. If I've decided I want to focus on stealth and thievery, or intimidation and diplomacy, I'll look hardest at the choices proposed for those skills.
Really, the depth of possible customization in PF2 still astounds me. I mean, I'm not looking to "optimize" my character for any specific trick, just give him cool things he's good at. Very quickly, in a few short levels, your character is going to be unique - above and beyond any quibbling about funky mechanics on different two-weapon fighting feats, or what have you.
I haven't played D&D since DD3.5, but from what I gather, DD5 characters are far less unique, with fewer options as the level up.
jmartkdr2
Hero
In the other thread someone used the phrase "complex and complicated."
I think it's worth making a distinction here - I'll call complexity the number of moving parts, and complicatedness the ease of access of those parts - in other words, how hard is it to find the rule you're looking for?
And PF2 is pretty good on the later, for a game as complex as it is. The heavy use of defined traits makes cross-referencing fairly easy in most cases. A negative example would be 3.x DnD, which had a lot of hidden rules that you had to already know about to even realize they were supposed to apply.
But PF2 is complex - that complexity buys a lot of depth and customization, but it's complex compared to most other ttrpgs.
I think it's worth making a distinction here - I'll call complexity the number of moving parts, and complicatedness the ease of access of those parts - in other words, how hard is it to find the rule you're looking for?
And PF2 is pretty good on the later, for a game as complex as it is. The heavy use of defined traits makes cross-referencing fairly easy in most cases. A negative example would be 3.x DnD, which had a lot of hidden rules that you had to already know about to even realize they were supposed to apply.
But PF2 is complex - that complexity buys a lot of depth and customization, but it's complex compared to most other ttrpgs.
Puggins
Explorer
This is the main point- the pathfinder team basically decided to name every single option in the game a feat, for good or ill. The only ones that resemble feats as they exist in 3/4/5e are skill feats and general feats, both of which are disassociated from specific heritages or classes. Heritage and class feats are more appropriately named "features."
There are fewer than 50 general feats (this a deficit that the APG did NOT address well) and about 100 skill feats. You can make the case that more are needed.
I do agree that several of the sub-systems are over-engineered. The general philosophy working here is that most actions require a die roll, which is complicating things a ton. Using medicine to treat wounds out of combat should require no die rolling, at all. Something like "10 minutes to heal 5+your level in hitpoints, 10+level for expert, 15+level for master, 20 + level for legendary" would probably be the way to go. Battlefield medicine or stabilizing a character could require rolls, since those are time-sensitive actions performed under stressful conditions. Crafting should function similarly.
Recall Knowledge, on the other hand, I would argue is under-engineered. There's an awful lot of hand-waving going on there. Say you want to make a recall knowledge check to figure out a Clay Golem's abilities and weaknesses. What should the DM tell you if you roll a success? how about a critical success? Ask different DMs and you'll probably completely different answers. The "official" result should be success will give you their most prominent feature- which one is that? The spells that slow them? The ones that harm them? The ones that heal them? How about their cursed wounds? How about their saves? It's very vague and can make a major difference in a combat.
So - PF2 combat and game play don't seem terribly complicated to me. I've been at this 40 years now and I GM games like GURPS and HERO. There are not a ton of complicated procedures (maybe figuring modifiers to a roll having the potential for most "points of handling"). What is unfortunate is many gamers look at the breadth of a game and measure complexity on choices. There is a LOT of choices in PF2, but in my experience players like choices. I like choices when I play!
Another thing to consider is classic level-based games are not designed for you to digest every option upfront. Sure, there is a whole segment of the gaming community that LOVES system mastery, planning out character builds, and getting the "perfect combo" of choices. That is a valid engagement and I applaud people who love to do it. Just like the segment of gamers who love to build things (the tinkerers as it were). But judging a game's complexity on availability of choices is misleading.
Personally, I determine complexity by a few things;
1) How often do the players have to engage the system in order to accomplish "the thing".
2) How often do players need to reference the rules in order to remember "the thing".
3) How long do the procedures take to resolve "the thing".
PF2 character creation at 1st level is not overly complex. I could argue that the process is more streamlined than 3.x days. For the build masters, it's more complex because there are TONS of options to chew on. That doesn't mean the game is complex, that just means system mastery is harder to obtain. You don't need system mastery to enjoy a game.
There is more clarification around the common procedures in PF2 (it's obvious the devs learned much about explaining things in a concise manner in hopes of reducing the debates or interpretations of the rules...). However, I don't see how combat or skill checks or using magic are any more or less complicated than 5e/PF2/PF1/3.x. You can easily add some notes on a character sheet for a new player, help them focus one level at a time, and build them into system mastery by level 6. By level 9 they should likely have the same fluency with the rules to plan out the next 9 levels with the same proficiency the master builder came in with.
In summary, I think many gamers see lots of options as making the game complex. This is misleading. The game is no more or less complex than other RPGs in its category. You likely won't have the same system mastery when you begin, but that is hardly necessary to enjoy the game if you want to take it one level at a time. Just my two cents...
Another thing to consider is classic level-based games are not designed for you to digest every option upfront. Sure, there is a whole segment of the gaming community that LOVES system mastery, planning out character builds, and getting the "perfect combo" of choices. That is a valid engagement and I applaud people who love to do it. Just like the segment of gamers who love to build things (the tinkerers as it were). But judging a game's complexity on availability of choices is misleading.
Personally, I determine complexity by a few things;
1) How often do the players have to engage the system in order to accomplish "the thing".
2) How often do players need to reference the rules in order to remember "the thing".
3) How long do the procedures take to resolve "the thing".
PF2 character creation at 1st level is not overly complex. I could argue that the process is more streamlined than 3.x days. For the build masters, it's more complex because there are TONS of options to chew on. That doesn't mean the game is complex, that just means system mastery is harder to obtain. You don't need system mastery to enjoy a game.
There is more clarification around the common procedures in PF2 (it's obvious the devs learned much about explaining things in a concise manner in hopes of reducing the debates or interpretations of the rules...). However, I don't see how combat or skill checks or using magic are any more or less complicated than 5e/PF2/PF1/3.x. You can easily add some notes on a character sheet for a new player, help them focus one level at a time, and build them into system mastery by level 6. By level 9 they should likely have the same fluency with the rules to plan out the next 9 levels with the same proficiency the master builder came in with.
In summary, I think many gamers see lots of options as making the game complex. This is misleading. The game is no more or less complex than other RPGs in its category. You likely won't have the same system mastery when you begin, but that is hardly necessary to enjoy the game if you want to take it one level at a time. Just my two cents...
FrozenNorth
Hero
If I were to DM PF2, I would steal this houserule.
I consider PF2 to be a fairly simple game, but that’s obscured by the presentation. The Playing the Game chapter of the CRB is a pretty tough slog. It introduces checks, which is not too bad. After that, it’s just page after page of definitions. Things like vision are actually pretty simple (and cleverly designed), but that’s obscured by the three pages of definitions and explanations. One could say it was written to be a reference, but it also needs to teach the game, and it doesn’t do that very well. Happily, the a PF2 Beginner’s Box is due out sooner rather than later (one year after launch instead of a couple like PF1), but it probably should have been released along with the CRB or even prior to it (like 5e did).
I’m dubious of this assumption. The system doesn’t prescribe any particular adventuring day. The only time it even mentions being fully rested is for extreme encounters, which are meant to be infrequent. Severe-threat encounters actually acknowledge that PCs might not be at full resources as a complicating factor (along with bad luck and poor tactics). If the game were predicated on PCs always being rested, then why not just say that?
If the PCs get into something that’s too dangerous for them, they should flee. The CRB mentions it when discussing severe-threat encounters, but the GMG also calls this out. In the Hexploration subsystem, it discusses one approach that includes having encounters so powerful that the correct tactic is to flee. In that case, it doesn’t matter whether PCs are at full hp. They can’t win regardless. If we accept that as a valid encounter, then it’s not too much of a stretch to consider ones where they’re too depleted as valid too. And if those are valid, they become useful tools for applying pressure to PCs in a dungeon.
