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

[Thomas Shey]

The more content that comes out for a game, the harder it is to balance with everything else that's already been created. For a new player, PF1 was way more complicated. Not only was there way more content, but a lot of that content were trap choices or things that no one ever took. For experienced players it wasn't such a big deal, but it became a nightmare for newer players. And the more stuff came out, the longer it took for someone to get experienced with the game. PF2, even when it achieves the same amount of content PF1 had, will still be easier because the math is easier. That doesn't necessarily make it a better game, but it's less prone to numbers bloat with fewer traps choices that you have to learn to avoid.

As I argued earlier, the less special-casing you have, generally the easier it is to wrap your head around a game, and its clear to me that PF2e has less of that than PF1e or D&D3e. (PF1e may have been slightly better than the latter, but probably not enough to matter for most people).

I agree that PF2 is very poor when in comes to theatre of the mind play, but if that's the style I'm shooting for, I'm not playing PF at all.

Its always hard for me to tell since my degree of aphantasia and spacial memory problems makes almost any RPG with combat virtually impossible for me to manage as either a player or a GM with TotM. You have to have a game that really doesn't care about movement, range, things like cover, and does at least a lot of handwaving with any area effects it has.

 

[stonehead]

Did you say "even" when you meant "especially"?

The issue my players always had with this is that, despite the implied greater experience with the system as levels increase, there just get to be too many moving parts, and they interact in ways that aren't obvious or intuitive except to people who think in a certain very specific way. Basically the complexity increases faster than experience can make up for, especially if you don't level that often.

I meant "even" only because it's a unique trait of P1, at least amongst the rpgs I've played. Usually, levelling up got easier as experience grew. I agree with what you're saying, especially how many abilities will have "This ability improves at level X, and every Y levels thereafter" without putting an entry in the class table on those levels. It's a lot to keep track of.

My point was just that in the other systems I've played with, the players were able to level up on their own after being guided through it a few times, but in P1, I had to help the entire campaign.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I meant "even" only because it's a unique trait of P1, at least amongst the rpgs I've played. Usually, levelling up got easier as experience grew. I agree with what you're saying, especially how many abilities will have "This ability improves at level X, and every Y levels thereafter" without putting an entry in the class table on those levels. It's a lot to keep track of.

My point was just that in the other systems I've played with, the players were able to level up on their own after being guided through it a few times, but in P1, I had to help the entire campaign.

You could actually run into that with D&D 3e fighters, at least if you wanted the players to not be constantly stepping on rakes.

It shouldn't usually be a major problem in PF2e because, honestly, usually your choices aren't that broad; skill and general feats can be a bit of a challenge, but after the first few of the latter, they aren't also usually that critical.

(I'm excluding spellcasters here, especially non-prepared casters, because IMO that's always a chore in the D&D adjacent sphere).

 

[TwoSix]

I agree that PF2 is very poor when in comes to theatre of the mind play, but if that's the style I'm shooting for, I'm not playing PF at all.

This. Complaining that PF2 is bad at theatre of the mind is like complaining that Mork Borg is bad at grid-based combat.

Not every game is intended for every play style.

 

[MichaelSomething]

This. Complaining that PF2 is bad at theatre of the mind is like complaining that Mork Borg is bad at grid-based combat.

Not every game is intended for every play style.

Too bad Pathfinder isn't as flexible as D&D!

 

[stonehead]

Too bad Pathfinder isn't as flexible as D&D!

Rage-bait aside, I actually agree.

Or, kinda. I agree that Pathfinder 1 and 2 are both less flexible than DnD 5e at least. When 5e was first released, it actually got a lot of praise for being lite, simple, and easy to learn. It doesn't really specialize, so it can handle a wide variety of play-styles without breaking.

I wouldn't say it's too bad though, because I only really care about the play-styles that I actually play. If you know what you want, it's better to pick something that specializes in that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The price of being okay at everything is usually not being good at anything.

 

[GreyLord]

Rage-bait aside, I actually agree.

Or, kinda. I agree that Pathfinder 1 and 2 are both less flexible than DnD 5e at least. When 5e was first released, it actually got a lot of praise for being lite, simple, and easy to learn. It doesn't really specialize, so it can handle a wide variety of play-styles without breaking.

I wouldn't say it's too bad though, because I only really care about the play-styles that I actually play. If you know what you want, it's better to pick something that specializes in that.

I think PF2e is more restrictive and not as flexible as 5e in some aresas....

But PF1e I think is FAR more flexible than 5e. Extremely so. It could be a matter of system mastery or such, but everything from how you can design enemies as Monsters or character options, to differences in classes (Fighters actually have a different to Hit progression than Wizards and others, in otherwords, they don't advance at the same rate with their base attack bonuses) which makes it easier to design very different and varied home brew classes than 5e, to many other facets make PF1e far more flexible.

IMO...of course.

 

[Tigris]

I think PF2e is more restrictive and not as flexible as 5e in some aresas....

But PF1e I think is FAR more flexible than 5e. Extremely so. It could be a matter of system mastery or such, but everything from how you can design enemies as Monsters or character options, to differences in classes (Fighters actually have a different to Hit progression than Wizards and others, in otherwords, they don't advance at the same rate with their base attack bonuses) which makes it easier to design very different and varied home brew classes than 5e, to many other facets make PF1e far more flexible.

IMO...of course.

I fully agree. D&D 3.5 / PF1 has the broadest design space for classes. And allows way more flexibility and also crazy ideas.

Its one of the things I really like about PF1/DnD 3.5

It allows classes like Truenamer, but also really cool precise adaptions like the PF1 based FinalFantasyD20: Final Fantasy d20

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I fully agree. D&D 3.5 / PF1 has the broadest design space for classes. And allows way more flexibility and also crazy ideas.

Its one of the things I really like about PF1/DnD 3.5

It allows classes like Truenamer, but also really cool precise adaptions like the PF1 based FinalFantasyD20: Final Fantasy d20

But only as few of them are viable. Like if you're a melee character, you're trash unless you have pounce because they decided that its ok for an archer to get all their attacks or a caster to move and cast meteor swarm but god forbid a sword and board move and make all his attacks.

It generated what we called full attack chicken. Where if you walk up to the monster you only get 1 attack then it gets to unload on you with its 4.