My players complain monsters too often have jarringly superior stats (like to hit and AC) making a straight-up duel unfair, but they definitely show zero signs of being demoralized by rolling successes.I guess we'll see. I don't like the sliding scale of success in Pathfinder 2e at all. When I read about it I thought it would be great but in play it's just a buzzkill. For some reason "sort of" succeeding seems to demoralize players more than failing.
In fact: huh?
I mean, had the complaint been "it's too easy to fail in PF2, especially when up against BBEGs, and the constant failure demoralizes my players" I would at least have understood it. (I would not necessarily agree, but that's another issue) Edit: basically the difference between what nevin said and what Retreater said.
But successes? It just isn't my experience - at all.
Since you need to beat the target number by 10, a critical success is sufficiently exceptional just by occurrence. It doesn't happen so often that getting "just" a regular success feels like some sort of limited success.
Then, effect. Getting a success in PF2 is definitely what you want. It's not some kind of held-back half-success. (Though there ARE individual spells and a few other effects where you might argue otherwise)
So I don't see that at all. God knows I have identified several issues with PF2. This is not one of them.
In fact, the way criticals work in PF2 is a core aspect of the entire system. Its impact is fundamental. It cannot and should not be removed. (Edit: from PF2, that is. Since you obviously can design a system that works well with a different set of rules for criticals, if you just take whatever you end up with into account when you design the fundamentals of the basic engine, the comment would have made no sense if applied to Corefinder - and it isn't)