Pathfinder 2E Is It Time for PF2 "Essentials"?

[dave2008]

PF2 Easytools does have a toggle for proficiency without level. It changes creature stats as expected.

Cool! What is PF2 Easytools?

I understand that there is a game that’s somewhere between 5e and PF2 in complexity or clutter. Level Up could be that. Personally 4e is that for me. But Paizo selling that as a product?

Though I am interested in LevelUp, that is a more complex 5e, not a mix of PF2 and 5e which I would be really be interested in. PF2 isn't just about the more options and complexity. In actuality it is the other parts of PF2 that interest me:

1. 3+ action system (ideally revised to a 6 action system that includes reactions)
2. +10/-10 crits
3. exploration system
4. balance

Would I personally enjoy a game somewhere between PF2 and 5e? Yes, and I do right now with 4e D&D.

I would also like a combination of 4e and 5e! I started that project once, but we ended up just taking our 4e houserules and importing them to 5e. That has worked really well for us.

But I don’t think it’s the right business decision for Paizo. Not now at least. Maybe in 5 years? Really hard to tell.

I agree, I'm not the OP, but my investment in this thread is discussing what a PF2 "essentials" could be, not if Paizo will do it (not likely) or if they should do it (no idea really)

 

[dave2008]

Since all the options are already available online, Paizo could develop 'essentials' characters, where they're fully Pathfinder 2e characters, but presented as a preset build path, ergo, instead of getting a choice of class feats at level 2, 4, etc you would just get something at that level decided by someone at paizo (or really, any of us online who can build characters with speed.) It would be fully compatible with Pathfinder 2e, and mirror essentials, but without actually adding different options (you don't need to circumvent a power system like 4e did, you'd just avoid feats that add too much complexity to the character.)

In other words, a player could be a Fighter (Knight), and that would just mean they're a fighter with a bunch of preselected feats curated to emulate a knight, it would make the presentation equivalent to 4e essentials / 5e, you'd just get a pre-selection of feats that make your fighter into a knight, instead of looking through all the options yourself.

Heck, the community could do this, fairly easily.

Yep, that is a type of thing I am thinking about. I still think building off the beginners box instead of the CRB would be a good idea to. Maybe a line-p of boxed sets like BECMI!

 

[dave2008]

I'm on board with all of this.

1. Streamline rules: I have no idea what is in the beginners box, but I did want to call out that I find the copy of PF2 noticeably poor as rules text. In many cases the rules text itself could easily be rewritten to be less verbose and better communicate intent. The most accessible rules writing style tends to use short declarative sentences, bolded keywords, and structures such as lists. PF2 rules text would benefit from adopting some of these conventions.
2. Reduction of Feats: Absolutely. I recently decided to rebuild a character from the ground up. A level 10 character with the simplest possible rules still has to make ~40-50 decisions. About 30 of those are feats, and there are literally hundreds of feats. As a player when I make a decision for a character, I want that decision to describe a significant characteristic that expresses itself through roleplay and mechanics, not a +1 bonus to Performance checks during night-time dance festivals under a full moon.
3. Simplified Classes: This one is a little vague. The broader point of too much design being driven by the tactical miniatures boardgame seems apt to me.
4. Striking Rune Removal: Yes. Big mistake to put any kind of more-or-less mandatory math bump as a magic item to begin with.
5. Remove +1/Lvl: Never going to happen, but it would be nice.

Seeing you rephrase it is giving me the itch to make a PF2.5e myself! IT just sounds so close to my ideal game. From experience I know that path is a fools errand (for me).

 

[payn]

The clutter argument is not really about how many choices from what I have read. It stems primarily from two things:

1. The CRB is not very user friendly and has bits and pieces all over. It is literally cluttered. This I agree with. If I get a chance to play PF2 I will definitely start with the beginner's box as everyone says it is more streamlined. And...
2. Rules for everything and in some peoples opinion to many or ill conceived rules. So the clutter is number off or fiddly nature of rules and bits and pieces. This is of course an opinion and taste thing to some degree.

1. I agree with CRB organization. The feat catalog is difficult to impossible to organize in print. Which is why I do everything digital. Of course, im a technical writer by profession, so I prefer all my content digital.
2. The feats are silo'd into Class, general, ancestry, and skill. Seems like one or more of them could be dropped for taste. Not sure if this is explored in the BB or the GMG? I like the depth myself, but understand how that can clip creative thinking out of some gamers and add unwanted complexity.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I tried to when it came out. My group (which I DM) is enjoying 5e to much to try something else (I asked), so I looked for another group. I couldn't find any in may area. I tried for a few months and then covid hit. Until I am back to in person playing I am stuck discussing it on message boards.

My offer still stands about for that one shot I have set up, though obviously I understand if you still don't feel ready to try online gaming.

 

[dave2008]

My offer still stands about for that one shot I have set up, though obviously I understand if you still don't feel ready to try online gaming.

I'm getting closer to giving it a try - it has been a long time now.

 

[CapnZapp]

Some people (like Zapp) insist there's a mountain of clutter, but honestly the game is only marginally more complex than 5e

This is absurd.

I am basing my observations on extensive play testing of both 5E and PF2.

Not that it should matter, since that PF2 is decisively more complex and detailed-filled is obvious as soon as you leave the very lowest levels.

 

[CapnZapp]

I dont really get the clutter arguments. I know level 1 has a daunting amount of choices, but after that its really just choose 1 of 3 options every level after that.

Get back to me after playing a mid level hero trying to remember what each potion talisman spell and feat does, and how they subtly differ from similar-sounding elements...

Good luck!

 

[dave2008]

Some people (like Zapp) insist there's a mountain of clutter, but honestly the game is only marginally more complex than 5e and the systems for the game all work very well in concert. You should try it sometime!

I do want to point out I have the CRB and the GMG and the Bestiary. I have tried to make a rogue and for me the rulebooks are cluttered. It is important to remember that what is considered cluttered is subjective, not an objective fact. So if I find the CRB cluttered, doesn't mean it is for you.

So in one sense I have tried to play PF2 (character creation), but never got to finishing my character or play in an actual game.

 

[HJFudge]

Get back to me after playing a mid level hero trying to remember what each potion talisman spell and feat does, and how they subtly differ from similar-sounding elements...

Good luck!

If only there were some way to keep the information fresh in ones head and right in front of them... some tool...perhaps a card one could take notes on...