Pathfinder 2E Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, let's pretend PF2 is in the same league as 5E.

Meanwhile, our players - veterans of dozens of D&D campaigns were shellshocked by the sheer onslaught of options, modifiers and choices in PF2.

For them, they faced the assault on their brains with a huge grin.

For a 5E casual, I don't think so.

Except We were talking about options in play not options in character building....

Please don’t pull that topic change bs

 

[dave2008]

I've not looked as much at out of combat. But I wondering if the complexity in play or character building as opposed to playing the game. It seems to me like combat is going to be mostly -> Attack attack move. Or possibly replace attack attack move with special feat ability attack move.

The basic combat actions seem pretty easy to understand. IMO.

That sounds simple, but the amount of traits, modifiers, feats, etc. that could affect every action are more than I'm willing to take on at the moment. 5e, advantage, and BA have corrupted me I guess. I am reviewing the PF2e Bestiary in another thread and the amount of resistances & vulnerabilities alone are staggering. I just don't know that I want to DM it!

 

[dave2008]

I've not looked as much at out of combat. But I wondering if the complexity in play or character building as opposed to playing the game. It seems to me like combat is going to be mostly -> Attack attack move. Or possibly replace attack attack move with special feat ability attack move.

The basic combat actions seem pretty easy to understand. IMO.

I haven't played, but I have heard both sides from those who have played (some saying it is to complex/difficult and others it is fine/great), so I think it really depends to the person / group. Which is not surprising really.

 

[CapnZapp]

Except We were talking about options in play not options in character building....

Please don’t pull that topic change bs

I'm talking about moving from 5E to PF2 thankyouverymuch

 

[FrogReaver]

Below is what you were actually talking about. You were talking about options in play. That's where our disagreement was. At least own up to what you were talking about.

Yes if somebody else builds the character for you the immediate onslaught of rules crunch goes way down.

Still, nope, sorry, simple "attack attack move" only happens on level 1.

You quickly rack up special moves that give you new decision points each round.

In fact my player's Ranger got about four of them already at level 1:

Start with Hunt Prey or not? (Will the critter live long enough for it to be worthwhile?)

Command the animal companion or use that action yourself?

Set your companion up for support, to gain Flat-footed for future attacks?

Use your third attack when the penalty is only -4? (Which can happen already at your second action thanks to Twin Takedown)

In 5E, a web of decisions this complex happens maybe at level 12. And that's assuming everything's "on" in your campaign: in particular feats and magic items.

Here we're talking a brand new character with 0 XP.

 

[Aaron L]

Nope. I loved 1st Edition Pathfinder but 2E just looks really unappealing to me. D&D 5E has hit all the right spots for me, with just a tiny bit of tweaking.
I do hope all the people going with PF2E enjoy it, though.

 

[CapnZapp]

5e, advantage, and BA have corrupted me I guess.

And not just you. I fear Paizo is in for a rude awakening when they publish a game like it's 2009.

Not that I don't wish them good luck. After all, I am GMing it right now.

 

[darjr]

5e was so intuitive to me and I’ve interlized so many of the quirks and how to deal with them that I’m not looking to change.

And it seems to me WotC and third parties have only scratched the surface of what can be done with it. For instance the Rick and Morty boxed set envokes a beer and pretzels comedic kinda style I’m dying to try.

 

[mach1.9pants]

I'll be sticking with 5e. I play with my four boys, the older 2 especially love crunchiness, and one is a total rules nerd like me. Maybe when the younger two are older, Dunno. But I will buy and read, I love reading PF1, and Paizo's stuff, and I'll do the same with 2

 

[Campbell]

So I think what sort of game works for somebody is greatly dependent on the person. As far as new players go I do not think we can meaningfully make a determination what their appetite for complexity is. Someone coming from a board gaming background or who plays Magic could feel at home in a game like Pathfinder 2.

Pathfinder 2 is remarkably clear, concise, and consistent. Things that do similar things work in exactly the same way. Proficiency works the same for skills, saves, armor, attacks, and Perception. Checks are always against a DC with one of four results.

There are not nearly as many special exceptions to the way things work. Instead of granting Wisdom modifier to Armor Class the monk just starts out Expert in Unarmored Defense. The monk's powerful fist ability only upgrades damage to a d6. It does not meaningfully change the way unarmed strikes work. The action economy feels far more fluid and intuitive to me than move, action, and bonus action with split moves and some things costing a portion of your move.

Almost everything is an active ability and comes from one of three resource pools : the action economy, focus points, and spell slots. There are no class abilities with their own individual resource pools or daily uses. There are very few always on passive abilities. I also think it's helpful that Champions (Paladins) and Rangers are not spell casters. Monks who opt in and all Champions do utilize focus spells, but those are far easier to manage.

More than anything else the clear formatting and templates is an immense help to me. Sometimes reading class abilities in 5e during the game was difficult because you have to parse out things like action cost, resource cost, target and effect. It was actively frustrating to me. I just do not get what the issue with clear formatting and using concise English is.

All that being said I do not think Pathfinder 2 is a good fit for someone who does not want to meaningfully interface with the rules of the game. They certainly will not get much enjoyment from what the game has to offer. I think you can guide a new player to slowly learn the game, but if their interests do not align with wanting to get better at the game and improve their skills I would suggest playing some other game with them.

Not really because of character complexity though. The monsters in this game are rough. They invoke nasty status effects that can sometimes last days and have numerous resistance, weaknesses, and immunities. Some like the hydra have specific ways they need to be killed. The classes we normally recommend to more casual players like Fighters and Barbarians are often taking the brunt of things like a Djinni's one a round ability to blast everyone around it back 20 feet with an aura that makes it so the space around them is difficult terrain or how a Gibbering Mouther can attack as a reaction when someone does slashing damage to it.

The martial classes do not seem overly complex to me. More complex than the Champion Fighter, but about on par with the Battlemaster, Paladin, and Monk in 5th Edition. What is a lot more complex is the situations they will likely find themselves in. Every monster is written like a little puzzle to figure out. Things like weapon choice, movement and positioning, and dealing with powerful debuffs are going to be regular features of play.