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

[stonehead]

I was reading this thread, and several posters there said they thought second edition was more complicated than first edition. That surprised me, because it's the exact opposite of my personal experience. I've ran Pathfinder 1 with new players, and even with levels in the double digits, most of them needed some help levelling up. I've ran Pathfinder 2 with new players, and most of them figured it out after 2 or 3 levels. The experience of actually playing at the table was similar.

Maybe my tables are outliers though. What's youre experience with the complexity of these systems?

Note: This has nothing to do with which system is better, or which system you prefer, only which one is more complicated.

 

[Retreater]

Just the spell durations of buffs is enough to make PF2 less complicated: you're not planning an hour before major fights to set up buff spells. We had sessions in PF1 that were just prepping for the next fight. I haven't seen anything on that level in PF2.

 

[Reynard]

I voted 1E because while 2E is complicated, it also made a serious effort toward balance and consistency that 1E lacks -- and that lack ups the complexity in practical terms.

 

[payn]

Yeah, I dont really get folks thinking PF2 is equal to or even more complicated than PF1. I think the denseness of the ruleset and reputation of PF1 give a false lead into the PF2 is complicated idea. At launch it was obvious that PF1 had tons more content, but PF2 is now 6-7 years old and catching up. A lot of the difference is in the execution and character building within. PF2 has a lot of choices at level 1, but then is funneled into fewer choices at level up. PF1 is a maze of possibilities that both engages folks and drives them away from the sheer amount of reading and knowledge required. Conditions are numerous in both, but PF2 for example, with its universal system, is easy to adjudicate. PF1 requires changing ability stat numbers and recalculating all sorts of checks for any given PC. Far more examples like the CR system alone can give you a good indication of how much light is between them in complexity.

 

[Tigris]

How many hours have you spent reading PF2 rules to get it? Not having it explained to you by someone, reading it yourself? Because PF2 has a way bigger complexity to read rules because all keywords etc. than if someone explains it and leaves all the (for the moment) unnecessary things away.


PF1 requires less keywords, less initial choices and way less system mastery to make a level 1 party work (with the normal rules, not a beginner adventure, not having someone explain it to you).


PF2 is literally unplayable if players dont know that they need to get "free" out of combat heal because the game is balanced around starting each fight with full HP but requires players to have enough system mastery to get enough free healing to do it.


PF2 works because it has a target audience who loves to watch guides and spend a lot of time doing systemmastery. So you have if you dont start a new group, also most of the time several players who spent 10s maybe 100s of hours reading about PF2 and thus being able to explain things on the level you need (leaving away the 30 conditions you dont need etc.)


I can see that after some levels players struggle less, because in PF2 choices rarely matter, if you have enough free healing, because the differences in powerlevel is soo small that yes its easier to levelup etc. because no matter what you do the difference in strength is in a really small margin, so you dont need to help the players because they cant make much wrong.


Also while both PF1 and PF2 have huge modifiers, but PF1 allows them (with a good GM) to often not care about them. If its clear from a low or high dice roll that you hit anyway or miss anyway, you dont have to add dice roll and modifiers together. The PF2 crit mechanic makes this simplification pretty much impossible. Also PF1 starts with 1 attack, while PF2 has multiattack with different attack modifiers from level 1, making combat already more complex. There is a reason why most people play PF2 with digital tools.


I am not completly sure that PF2 is really more complex than PF1, but if we calculate the complexit per depth, then PF2 is way way higher.


PF1 has a lot of complexity because it has a lot of depth. PF2 has a high complexity because it wants to give the impression of a high depth, thats why for me PF2 feels worse when it comes to complexity.


I did read both PF1 and PF2 from scratch without anyone explaining it to me (PF1 first). PF2 is way worse to understand, but I am sure I would have an easier time explaining PF2 to players than PF1. (Because it can be soo much simplified).


So I rate the complexity of me understanding it from reading the rules, because thats how the game presents itself.

 

[payn]

How many hours have you spent reading PF2 rules to get it? Not having it explained to you by someone, reading it yourself? Because PF2 has a way bigger complexity to read rules because all keywords etc. than if someone explains it and leaves all the (for the moment) unnecessary things away.


PF1 requires less keywords, less initial choices and way less system mastery to make a level 1 party work (with the normal rules, not a beginner adventure, not having someone explain it to you).


PF2 is literally unplayable if players dont know that they need to get "free" out of combat heal because the game is balanced around starting each fight with full HP but requires players to have enough system mastery to get enough free healing to do it.


PF2 works because it has a target audience who loves to watch guides and spend a lot of time doing systemmastery. So you have if you dont start a new group, also most of the time several players who spent 10s maybe 100s of hours reading about PF2 and thus being able to explain things on the level you need (leaving away the 30 conditions you dont need etc.)


I can see that after some levels players struggle less, because in PF2 choices rarely matter, if you have enough free healing, because the differences in powerlevel is soo small that yes its easier to levelup etc. because no matter what you do the difference in strength is in a really small margin, so you dont need to help the players because they cant make much wrong.


Also while both PF1 and PF2 have huge modifiers, but PF1 allows them (with a good GM) to often not care about them. If its clear from a low or high dice roll that you hit anyway or miss anyway, you dont have to add dice roll and modifiers together. The PF2 crit mechanic makes this simplification pretty much impossible. Also PF1 starts with 1 attack, while PF2 has multiattack with different attack modifiers from level 1, making combat already more complex. There is a reason why most people play PF2 with digital tools.


I am not completly sure that PF2 is really more complex than PF1, but if we calculate the complexit per depth, then PF2 is way way higher.


PF1 has a lot of complexity because it has a lot of depth. PF2 has a high complexity because it wants to give the impression of a high depth, thats why for me PF2 feels worse when it comes to complexity.


I did read both PF1 and PF2 from scratch without anyone explaining it to me. PF2 is way worse to understand, but I am sure I would have an easier time explaining PF2 to players than PF1. (Because it can be soo much simplified).

Hmm... Yeah variable BAB, iterative attacks, etc.. of PF1 is way more complicated than the X/-5/-10 system of PF2. I read your posts on PF2 and I just don't understand where you are coming from.

 

[Tigris]

Hmm... Yeah variable BAB, iterative attacks, etc.. of PF1 is way more complicated than the X/-5/-10 system of PF2. I read your posts on PF2 and I just don't understand where you are coming from.

At level 1 you have how many iterative attacks? And how big is the BAB?

Most people start playing a game at level 1 and most campaigns go never above level 7.

Also "variable bab" is not hard to understand there is a literal table in PF1. Meanwhile in PF2 you have no such thing, you must look up your previous class features, then look up what the keywords mean to understand what your base attack modifier is (which is also higher than bab normally).


So PF2 starts more complex (with multiple attacks and penalty), has higher numbers, and has a way worse representation of basic information like base attack modifier and saves etc.

 

[DammitVictor]

Maybe my tables are outliers though. What's youre experience with the complexity of these systems?

Note: This has nothing to do with which system is better, or which system you prefer, only which one is more complicated.

I don't have enough expertise/experience on the topic to have an opinion worth sharing; PF2 seems more complicated to me, quite possibly because I'm already intimately familiar with PF1 and the PF2 rulebooks are just... impenetrable to me.

Thank you for this. I've got a full playset of PF2, and a handful of the setting books, and I'd really like to make better use of them.

 

[SpellObjectEnthusiast]

How many hours have you spent reading PF2 rules to get it?

Maybe 2 hours, then I started running the game. I had my group(s) read the rules and we started playing immediately, pretty well without too many issues.

I have also had a group NOT read anything and we learned-as-they-played through the beginner box. Again, no issues.

 

[stonehead]

How many hours have you spent reading PF2 rules to get it? Not having it explained to you by someone, reading it yourself? Because PF2 has a way bigger complexity to read rules because all keywords etc. than if someone explains it and leaves all the (for the moment) unnecessary things away.


PF1 requires less keywords, less initial choices and way less system mastery to make a level 1 party work (with the normal rules, not a beginner adventure, not having someone explain it to you).


PF2 is literally unplayable if players dont know that they need to get "free" out of combat heal because the game is balanced around starting each fight with full HP but requires players to have enough system mastery to get enough free healing to do it.


PF2 works because it has a target audience who loves to watch guides and spend a lot of time doing systemmastery. So you have if you dont start a new group, also most of the time several players who spent 10s maybe 100s of hours reading about PF2 and thus being able to explain things on the level you need (leaving away the 30 conditions you dont need etc.)


I can see that after some levels players struggle less, because in PF2 choices rarely matter, if you have enough free healing, because the differences in powerlevel is soo small that yes its easier to levelup etc. because no matter what you do the difference in strength is in a really small margin, so you dont need to help the players because they cant make much wrong.


Also while both PF1 and PF2 have huge modifiers, but PF1 allows them (with a good GM) to often not care about them. If its clear from a low or high dice roll that you hit anyway or miss anyway, you dont have to add dice roll and modifiers together. The PF2 crit mechanic makes this simplification pretty much impossible. Also PF1 starts with 1 attack, while PF2 has multiattack with different attack modifiers from level 1, making combat already more complex. There is a reason why most people play PF2 with digital tools.


I am not completly sure that PF2 is really more complex than PF1, but if we calculate the complexit per depth, then PF2 is way way higher.


PF1 has a lot of complexity because it has a lot of depth. PF2 has a high complexity because it wants to give the impression of a high depth, thats why for me PF2 feels worse when it comes to complexity.


I did read both PF1 and PF2 from scratch without anyone explaining it to me (PF1 first). PF2 is way worse to understand, but I am sure I would have an easier time explaining PF2 to players than PF1. (Because it can be soo much simplified).


So I rate the complexity of me understanding it from reading the rules, because thats how the game presents itself.

Personally, I've never watched videos about P2, nor had it explained by anyone. I've been the persona explaining it to my group. I got the basic rules in a few hours, and read more deeply because I enjoy reading rpgs, even those I haven't played yet. P1 took me several weeks to understand. One thing to note though, P1 was my first ttrpg, and I got into it as a teenager. It's possible that I'm baised and the difference is that I'm smarter now, and not that P2 is necessarily simpler now. That's why I created the poll, to see what others think.

Keywords and traits seem to be a big complaint for lots of people, but I never really saw the difficulty in hovering the mouse over something to see if it mattered. A crazy theory: maybe there's a difference between reading physical books and using Archives of Nethys. When traits are all hyperlinked, and you can see a preview on mouse hover, they're a lot more manageable.

To those who complain about traits: Do you primarily read paper books, or browse websites?