Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[ronaldsf]

I posted the video for the original topic of this thread: whether PuffinForest is giving a fair review of PF2.

His "combat example" from PF2 complains about the potential situational modifiers that goes into one attack. But 4E is swimming in modifiers that come from the use of powers.

I HAVE watched Puffin's video. Puffin seemed genuinely interested in running a 4E one-shot, while at the same time having specific complaints about its complexity. Which begs the question whether his rant against PF2 for being "complex" was purely for entertainment value/views/algorithm and not to give a "fair review."

 

[LotsOfLore]

I don't usually drop a dislike to a YouTube video unless I feel it's really warranted. I disliked that review. In no way it does justice to the game and, to be honest, at times the arguments were so laughable I thought it must have been a mock review.

 

[Yardiff]

A response to Puffin's video.

 

[Teemu]

PF2 is more complex than 4e. For example, you don’t have to calculate anything resembling MAP and things that modify it in 4e, nor do you have weapon traits like forceful or sweeping. You don’t heighten spells or track spell slots in 4e (except wizard, and even then it’s simpler). No counteracting. No 4 degrees of success. You can have plenty of modifiers in 4e combat, but not always because it’s possible to have a party with few such powers.

 

[CapnZapp]

Arguing whether 4E or PF2 is the most or least complicated just serve to obscure what actually matters - both 4E and PF2 are very complicated.

In my opinion, the difference in complexity level between these two games are relatively minor compared to how much more complex both games are vs 5th Edition.

 

[Aldarc]

Arguing whether 4E or PF2 is the most or least complicated just serve to obscure what actually matters - both 4E and PF2 are very complicated.

In my opinion, the difference in complexity level between these two games are relatively minor compared to how much more complex both games are vs 5th Edition.

Why does, or even should, 5e actually matter in this discussion? Shouldn't the actual issue of importance be the relative complexity when compared with the "parent" 3E or PF1 systems?

 

[LotsOfLore]

... both 4E and PF2 are very complicated. ...

I think "very complicated" is very relative and subjective concept. Anima is complicated, Aquelarre, Shadowrun, Traveller (the old version), Kult, PF1 etc. these are complicated.

Also, there is good complexity and bad complexity. The good kind is achieved when you can quickly and painlessly learn a game on a basic level and then gradually raise the complexity as you go deeper into customisation and exploration of what more the game has to offer. So PF2 is a perfect example of that. PF1 was not, unfortunately. That's part of why they made a second edition.

The difference with 5e (which is still a great game), is that if you want more complexity there, you have to make it yourself. (that's part of why ppl are making an "advanced 5e", for instance). 5e almost only gives you the bare bones. Some ppl like this, I personally don't.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Why does, or even should, 5e actually matter in this discussion? Shouldn't the actual issue of importance be the relative complexity when compared with the "parent" 3E or PF1 systems?

If the question is "Should I play PF2?" then the points of comparison would be 'other games you might chose instead," which certainly includes 5e DnD.

If the original question was "Should I switch form PF1 to PF2?" then 5e would be a bit of a tangent. (Although it might come up if one of your reasons for wanting to switch is 'PF1 is too complex for my group.")

 

[CapnZapp]

Why does, or even should, 5e actually matter in this discussion? Shouldn't the actual issue of importance be the relative complexity when compared with the "parent" 3E or PF1 systems?

Because like it or not 5E is the new gold standard of D&D like games.

Because a claim such as "Game A is less complexity than Game B" can easily be misinterpreted as Game A being accessible and friendly, when in actual fact most readers are not likely to appreciate or even register the supposed reduction in complexity.

In a pre-5E world, Pathfinder 2 would likely be heralded as a great step forward compared to both 3E/PF and 4E.

But we don't live in a pre 5E world. In fact, we haven't for five whole years!

 

[CapnZapp]

I think "very complicated" is very relative and subjective concept.

Yes I agree.

I'm trying to fight against the notion where the complexity of Paizo's new game is made out to be not a big deal, such as by contrasting it against even more complex ttrpgs.

I'm trying to argue PF2 is objectively much more complex than 5E, and likely too complex for the sensibilities of today's gamer.