My group looked very briefly at PF2 when it came out, and that was the conclusion that we came to as well.
This is true, and is a real shame. I know a lot of people want to find a "crunchy" RPG system that allows for a great deal of freedom and variability while still keeping everything tightly balanced, but I'm convinced that these two things – options and balance – are opposites, in that you can't maintain balance without introducing constraints on options. Personally, I'm of the opinion that balance is something which happens just as much at the table as in the books (i.e. the GM tailors things to challenge the group appropriately, while still maintaining verisimilitude), so I much prefer that the game put options first and balance second.
Well, most games fail at both, so...
PF2 is incredibly tied down. Another way of putting it is that it sacrifices everything at the altar of balance.
Which I am impressed you could see after only looking at it "very briefly". Most people would be dazzled by the huge (insanely huge, in fact) array of options you get, and only later realize that you are very very rarely given any gamechanging options. Paizo is nickle and dimeing you, by chopping up every conceivable bonus in as many and as small increments as possible.
Sometimes forgetting even basic gameplay options. For instance, you basically can't crawl unless you pick a feat for that (perhaps it was called Nimble Crawl). But having to spend a resource that after all is limited on removing artificial limitations there only to be able to present a larger catalogue of choices is deeply deeply unfun.
This crawl example is of course not super important, but it exemplifies a truly detestable rules design approach: in order to find out your true limitations, you need to know all of the feats. There are way too many instances where a data point you need to understand what you can and cannot do is buried in the feats chapter.
PF2 is an inexplicable game. How anyone could think writing a book that comes across as a boring catalogue right after the trainwreck that was 4E that did the exact same thing as regards presentation is completely beyond me. To me PF2 reads as if written by people entirely unaware of 4th Edition and its reception.
Then there are a couple of outliers. These I could have forgiven if they didn't symbolize the full extent of the design process that PF2 embodies: Talismans. These... I have no words. They're atrocious, basically. Asking a human play group to track the usage of Talismans without computer support is a travesty and nothing less. If you know how they work, you know what I mean. If you don't, then, well, I plead with you to
not look up the rules.
Basically, you're asked to jump through several hoops for a one-time bonus of the smallest and most restricted kind possible. I couldn't believe my eyes when I first read that chapter. I wanted to rip the pages out of the book, was my immediate reaction. But you be the judge, or ideally, not.
---
I stand by my assessment that basic combat is excellent in PF2. The way
monsters generally outclass heroes, but that heroes somehow always comes out on top, is a genuine fresh breath.
Of course, it also means it is its own game (for similar reasons 4E is its own game). You can't take any old encounter and just expect it to work. PF2 encounters are meant to be highly calibrated. If you haven't run official Paizo scenarios you need to do that before responding.
In the end, I think players tire of playing in this new paradigm, so in that regard it is a failure. But it sure is exciting for a while; a decent try to spice things up D&D combat-wise. My end analysis is that PF2 combat fails for much the same reasons 4E combat fails - it forgets that the story must trump the mechanics. The way regular D&D combat (meaning OD&D, AD&D, 3E and 5E here) can feel sloppy is a net positive, because it allows story to influence how fast or slow it concludes. The more "balanced" combat becomes (involving more parameters) the only way we got quick fights were when we could see already from the beginning we were going to win easily... and then it feels like a complete waste of time going through the motions. Whereas in regular D&D combat, swish swish and that easy fight is done.
PF2 and 4E excels at centrepiece combats. But are terrible at humdrum combats. I much prefer the simpler rhythm of regular D&D, and realize that everything that more elaborate combat systems like 4E and PF2 adds becomes a hindrance in the end.
Btw, PF2 is a big improvement upon 4E in one area: spellcasting. This is because, for some inexplicable reason, Paizo did trust spellcasters(?!) What I mean is that the magic system largely survives intact from regular D&D. Sure they added Incapacitation, which comes across as a very crude solution, but play the game enough, and you realize they needed to do
something, and besides, if you basically ignore spells with that trait altogether, it can't hurt you.
But as said, that's still a decent try and not what I'm dinging the game for. What fails for me is how PF2 exudes a feeling of not trusting the player. At every turn, players are given the smallest choices imaginable, and many aspects of chargen from 3rd edition (and PF1) is just locked away.
And then there's Talismans. If I ever had to report a crime against decency in rules design, that would be my top contender.
