I apologize because I feel like I am giving a negative impression that I don't think is justified. I have competing feelings about PF2 on paper, and I think I need to play to see if any of that really matters. I look at from a Designer, a DM, and a player perspective. On paper there a things in all three of those categories that look awesome and some that worry me, But that is true of most games. Personally, I tend to find the system doesn't matter as much as me, and I would think that would be the case for PF2 too.Really? Maybe you won't like it then.
I think your definition of effective is different than mine (and a lot of other posters in these forums). But it does sound like you have an optimizer's perspective, which neither I nor my group is.I don't like making a two-weapon fighter and being the red-headed step-child to the two-hander fighter. I don't like archers being supreme damage dealers while ranged magic users are left with AoE damage. I don't much enjoy having to take the same feats or spells over and over again to be effective.
It is not just my 5e game, that includes my 1e and 4e games too. My players and I don't play D&D to optimize. We don't chase the best spell, equipment, feat, sub-class, race, strategy or synergy. We pick a character we want to play and play. It is that simple. If I can do that in PF2e, I', sure I'll be fine. Just don't expect me to contribute much in combat because I am terrible at tactics and synergy!Given you don't have anyone playing paladins or like in your 5E game, I find your idea of optimization strange.