Pathfinder 2E Essential PF2ER Elements

[Reynard]

I am beginning the process of creating a rule set distilled from PF2E(R) for heroic portal fantasy (inspired by the way Shadowdark was able to distill 5E D&D down for old school dungeon exploration). I am looking for input from folks who play PF2E(R) as to what elements of play are essential to their enjoyment of the game and its usefulness at the table.

I am definitely going to keep the 3 action economy, the ability scores as modifiers only, the 3 saves and the general structure of relying on traits to do a lot of the mechanical heavy lifting. I am definitely going to have to trim character generation, options and advancement way down to some core components for strong portal fantasy archetypes. I am not sure what to do about monster stat blocks other than I know I want them to be leaner but also make sure no monsters are just bags of hit points.

If you have ideas of what is essential to keep a trimmed down version of PF2E(R) recognizable as a a descendent of it, please feel free to comment. or, if you have ideas about what makes a good heroic portal fantasy game, I'd interested.

Just a note, though: if you answer is something like "you can't" or "why bother" I am not really interested in that discussion. Thanks.

 

[Xenolith234]

For me, the wide array of interesting monster abilities were essential to my enjoyment, rather than just attacking multiple times. Have you taken a look at the 3rd party creation Pathwarden? It might give you some ideas.

 

[payn]

I am beginning the process of creating a rule set distilled from PF2E(R) for heroic portal fantasy (inspired by the way Shadowdark was able to distill 5E D&D down for old school dungeon exploration). I am looking for input from folks who play PF2E(R) as to what elements of play are essential to their enjoyment of the game and its usefulness at the table.

I am definitely going to keep the 3 action economy, the ability scores as modifiers only, the 3 saves and the general structure of relying on traits to do a lot of the mechanical heavy lifting. I am definitely going to have to trim character generation, options and advancement way down to some core components for strong portal fantasy archetypes. I am not sure what to do about monster stat blocks other than I know I want them to be leaner but also make sure no monsters are just bags of hit points.

If you have ideas of what is essential to keep a trimmed down version of PF2E(R) recognizable as a a descendent of it, please feel free to comment. or, if you have ideas about what makes a good heroic portal fantasy game, I'd interested.

Just a note, though: if you answer is something like "you can't" or "why bother" I am not really interested in that discussion. Thanks.

I think chargen is a lot at level 1, but it's sufficiently reduced afterwards where leveling up is nearly as quick as 5E, IME. So, I think cutting down some of the choices could help. Though, my instincts are always to increase specific choices so Id lean more towards custom backgrounds and archetypes myself. However, I am vaguely familiar with portal fantasy do you have some archetypes of adventure types to help me wrap my head more around the idea?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I mean, you might want to combine feats into certain packages, so there is less choice but still the same amount of things to do. I would say if you want to capture PF2, the things you want are:

1. 3-Action Economy
   
   
2. Robust class skeleton which handles the numerical growth of things.
   
   
3. Feats which are focused on creating new actions/options or getting rid of penalties rather than creating new plusses.
   
   
4. The -10/+10 graduated scale of failure and success.

I would definitely recommend looking at how PF2 does things like Automatic Bonus Progression and Proficiency Without Level, though with the latter I think you can probably halve the level and find a nice sweet-spot range for allowing people to still feel like they are advancing while also expanding the useful amount of levels you can use in regards to monsters.

 

[RangerWickett]

I know it changes the math of combat, but I wish the game had, instead of 3 actions, been 2 actions and a move, with no more than one action per round that deals damage. That makes using interesting abilities that modulate the conditions of the encounter easier, since you don't end up feeling like you're missing out on damage.

I think chargen is a lot at level 1

I've recently been playing Legend of the Five Rings, and one of the great parts of it is the Game of Twenty Questions.

Character creation is framed as answering questions about your character. Something about that presentation makes it more interesting to me.

What's your clan, your family, your school? How do you excel relative to them? How do you disagree with them? What's something you're known for that's positive, and another thing that's negative?

It encourages making every element of your character tie into the rest of the setting and its story. From the start, choices are rooted in how people will interact with you, not just your stats or whatever.

 

[Velderan]

To add to what others have said, I'd add the 4 degrees of success as being pretty important to making something that is identifiable as PF2e.

As far as streamlining the game a bit, paring down the number of actions would probably go a long way towards simplifying the game. The Beginner Box does a pretty good job with the cards each player is given, which explains Drop Prone, Interact, Leap, Seek, Stand, Step, Stride, and Strike as basic actions.

Conditions as well. The back side of the card explains Concealed, Flat-footed (so Off-Guard), Frightened, Grabbed, Persistent Damage, Prone, Restrained, Slowed, Unconscious, and Wounded. I believe the Hero's Handbook then explains Dying.

 

[Reynard]

To add to what others have said, I'd add the 4 degrees of success as being pretty important to making something that is identifiable as PF2e.

As far as streamlining the game a bit, paring down the number of actions would probably go a long way towards simplifying the game. The Beginner Box does a pretty good job with the cards each player is given, which explains Drop Prone, Interact, Leap, Seek, Stand, Step, Stride, and Strike as basic actions.

Conditions as well. The back side of the card explains Concealed, Flat-footed (so Off-Guard), Frightened, Grabbed, Persistent Damage, Prone, Restrained, Slowed, Unconscious, and Wounded. I believe the Hero's Handbook then explains Dying.

I was looking at the BB pregens for inspiration regarding character sheets/playbooks.

 

[cranberry]

I play the "regular" 2E remastered, but one thing I'd like to change/simplify is the shield mechanic.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that anyone holding a shield wouldn't raise it automatically at the start of combat.

That is, a player shouldn't have to specify that they are raising their shield, and shouldn't have to spend an action to do so.

 

[Reynard]

I play the "regular" 2E remastered, but one thing I'd like to change/simplify is the shield mechanic.

I don't think it's unreasonable to assume that anyone holding a shield wouldn't raise it automatically at the start of combat.

That is, a player shouldn't have to specify that they are raising their shield, and shouldn't have to spend an action to do so.

I don't have a problem with "active defense" reducing your available options in a given round, but they probably could have called it that instead of Raise Shield -- mostly because of posts like this one that take it too literally.

 

[cranberry]

I don't have a problem with "active defense" reducing your available options in a given round, but they probably could have called it that instead of Raise Shield -- mostly because of posts like this one that take it too literally.

I'm not hung up on the wording, I simply don't think an action needs to be spent for it, and I provided a reason.

You may disagree, but there is no need for a condescending tone.