Pathfinder 2E I played my first PF2e game this week. Here's why I'm less inclined to play again.

[jolt]

I think a lot of PF2's complexity comes in at character creation and level up where you have a lot of options to choose from. High levels can be tricky, but by the time your get there, you usually know your own character pretty well. I think the game has done a decent, though not fantastic, job at removing a lot of twinky modifiers. I remember playing the Jade Regent AP in PF1 and my Paladin at 4th level already had a dizzying number of modifiers to his attack roll. It reminds me of the early OotS comic wqhere Durkon misses his attack and has to be reminded of all his modifiers by the other characters.

 

[payn]

I think a lot of PF2's complexity comes in at character creation and level up where you have a lot of options to choose from. High levels can be tricky, but by the time your get there, you usually know your own character pretty well. I think the game has done a decent, though not fantastic, job at removing a lot of twinky modifiers. I remember playing the Jade Regent AP in PF1 and my Paladin at 4th level already had a dizzying number of modifiers to his attack roll. It reminds me of the early OotS comic wqhere Durkon misses his attack and has to be reminded of all his modifiers by the other characters.

I hear folks say this but ive found it entirely the opposite. Every level up is easier than the last. The most complex level is one because it will inform all the decisions for the rest of the character's life. Level up is feat from a bucket of like 1-5 to choose from, add an occasional stat bump then add 1 to everything and done.

Now combat and the adventure day itself is where things get interesting. I think a lot of the struggle is how non-traditional it is in play while looking traditional in expectation.

 

[Reynard]

I think a lot of PF2's complexity comes in at character creation and level up where you have a lot of options to choose from. High levels can be tricky, but by the time your get there, you usually know your own character pretty well. I think the game has done a decent, though not fantastic, job at removing a lot of twinky modifiers. I remember playing the Jade Regent AP in PF1 and my Paladin at 4th level already had a dizzying number of modifiers to his attack roll. It reminds me of the early OotS comic wqhere Durkon misses his attack and has to be reminded of all his modifiers by the other characters.

It is a pain to run with all the tags and fiddly bits.

 

[payn]

It is a pain to run with all the tags and fiddly bits.

I just left a con in Minneapolis. I meant to duck into the PF room to lurk a bit but never got the chance. I’ve only played it on Foundry

 

[Justice and Rule]

For the most part I'd agree. The one mechanic I think they missed the mark in making something clear and simple to use is counteracting. I'm willing to admit this might just be a me issue that I can read it a couple times, feel like I understand it, and then draw a blank when the mechanic actually comes up in play because it's infrequent enough that it's not fresh in my head. Thankfully someone made an online tool to handle it, but to me it's existence is more proof enough people feel there's an unneeded complexity there if a tool exists to automate resolving the mechanic. I wish they had come up with something else in the remaster.

For the record, I get why they didn't just stick with a simple DC check to resolve it. They didn't want people to be able to use cheap low level items to counteract high level afflictions. I also don't really have a better solution, I just don't particularly like where they landed to solve the problem they saw.

Counteract definitely needs to be simpler. One of the remnants of something that feels a bit more like PF1 than 2.

"Grasp", sure; D&D style spells are, in some ways, stupidly simple in that they act like having a bag full of grenades. But the fact there's very little common shape to spells doesn't make keeping track of them exactly the simplest element in the system.

Sure, sure, though I think they've done a decent job at keeping things more consistent rather than making every spell have bespoke mechanics and effects. I still find most people get more problems trying to figure out what spells they want to bring when they are a prepared caster than anything.

Spells caused far and away the most “wait, what? How does this work” play stoppages with my “new to TTRPGs” 5e group as we played through a campaign. With a not uncommon amount of googling to try and parse out intent. Not to mention the bonus/normal limits and split that kept coming up.

5E spells are generally all bespoke: there isn't a framework that they all work within, so you can never be sure one works like another one. PF2 cuts down on this quite a bit with things like "Basic" saves and such.

But yes, the Vancian idea of magic is also very weird to people whose main interaction with the idea of magic is not D&D. Hell, even the old grogs I play with made up a mana system for AD&D back in the day because it never felt like it properly fit.

It is a pain to run with all the tags and fiddly bits.

Tags aren't honestly bad. There are a lot of them, but the interactions with them are generally pretty clear. So to use an example:

Lot of tags, but basically obvious.

Concentrate: Basically this is only going to matter if someone is raging or someone has something that specifically keys off it, like something that would prevent you from using stuff with Concentrate. You aren't going to be blindsided by it.

Emotion: Is an Emotion effect. Certain feats or spells effect it, but it'll say when they do. For example, Calm will suppress a Charm spell because it suppresses Emotion effects. Again, you need something that specifically keys off this tag to really care about it, which pushes it to the player most of the time.

Incapacitation: This is an important one to know since it means it'll be less effective against stuff that is higher than 2x the spell level it is cast at. This is game-important.

Manipulate: Another important one, since it means you need to make gestures or motions to do the action. It is also a common trigger for reactions, particularly Reactive Strike.

Mental: The next step up from Emotion (since all things that have Emotion have the Mental tag). If something is immune to mental effects (like a golem/construct) obviously isn't effected. This cuts down on arguments as to whether something effects a mindless creature because you can just look at the tag and say "Yes" or "No".

Subtle: All spells are assumed to basically require words. Subtle spells don't and lack the big spell sigils that you see in all the classic Pathfinder Art. This means that you can cast it and it won't register as a spell being cast.

So a lot of tags, but it's not all going to be used at the same time. A lot of it makes for immediate clarification as to whether something will work on it or if it will work on something else. Seems like a lot, but generally isn't.


Honestly if you want fiddly bits, I'd say Poisons/Afflictions could probably be simpler, and there are a few weapon traits that I often forget about, like Forceful/Backstabber/Backswing. They aren't terrible, but they aren't as easily-remembered and get a lot of use. You can create automation for them, but they are properly fiddly.