Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e Newbie with questions.

[Velderan]

The beginner box version of the game is totally playable.

I haven't played it yet, but that's all I currently own and agree it's definitely fleshed out enough to play on it's own.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The beginner box version of the game is totally playable.

From the descriptions I've heard, the Beginner Box is not so much lighter as simply doesn't go as deep into things you only need to know if you advance past the range it covers (of course it also doesn't have the subsidiary material that expands the game, such as the additional classes and ancestries).

At its root, PF2e is not a supremely complex game, at least from the point of any individual character. This comes up when people start to count all the feats in the game and their heads explode. But what they're ignoring is the majority of those feats are never accessible to or relevant to any given character, because they're either class feats for classes a given player isn't, well, playing, or skill feats with skills that are not one they've invested in and/or care about. Similar things apply to the rather extensive list of spells; for the vast majority of characters, only a quarter (at most) of them are relevant.

Honestly, the worst I can see can be directed at the game in regards to complexity is that there's still a pretty large number of conditions everyone has to learn; other than that, the size of the book is deceptive in how complex it is to play. You can have a fair number of options at higher levels accumulated over time as you take class feats and the like, and naturally, spellcasters have even more (because in the D&D sphere, they virtually always do) but no player is likely to need to know more than a fraction of that corebook.

 

[fjw70]

I picked up the beginner box PDF and will see if my groups wants to Al least try it out before we make a decision on the next campaign.

 

[kenada]

I do wish there were a lighter version of the game that had the same core mechanics.

That’s the Beginner Box. It’s (more or less) the same core system but with fewer options and presented more clearly and concisely.

Personally, I think Paizo should have done it first, so they could have built on its better text instead of what they released for the Core Rulebook.

 

[fjw70]

That’s the Beginner Box. It’s (more or less) the same core system but with fewer options and presented more clearly and concisely.

Personally, I think Paizo should have done it first, so they could have built on its better text instead of what they released for the Core Rulebook.

But it’s only for a couple levels. I meant a complete game.

 

[kenada]

I have a hunch that there is a lighter game in there, it's just covered up by (imo) over complicated on boarding. I'm still investigating tho

There is. The core of the system is pretty streamlined with few (if any) exceptions to the rules. It suffers for a few reasons:

1. It’s needlessly verbose. If one has both the Beginner Box and the Core Rulebook, compare rules that are in both. The rules in the BB are more concisely and clearly written. The stealth/vision explanation is much better. The CRB often goes into different rules as exceptions needlessly, and it’s afraid of its own information format. Craft is a notorious example of this problem, but weapon traits are arguably its close cousin.
2. It builds in layers. This is complicated by #1, but it’s also a conceptual problem. The action economy is simple. You just spend up to three actions in combat doing stuff. There are board games people play that do things like this, and PF2 should be that simple. However, reactions can trigger off of things, and traits can have an affect too. Even a trait that does nothing rule-wise like Concentrate can have an effect because actions may be limited by this.
3. Some of the layers are not well-named. There are Deadly and Fatal weapon traits. They both affect critical hits but do different things. If PF2 is going to lean heavily on traits, they should be self-evident what they do or distinct enough not to cause confusion. I also think those that are just tags to be used by other traits should be clearly identified as such. Concentrate is a good example.
4. Some parts are just bad. The out of combat healing economy is pretty bad. You have to make a lot of rolls with a cost that I expect most groups just don’t worry about. Either something like the Stamina variant should have been the default, there should have been some other cost (e.g., it depletes a resource like WWN does with System Strain, it risks triggering some kind of event check in exploration mode), or the amount of healing should scale without having to sim it out through multiple checks (e.g., level 1 Trained does as written for success, but Level 4 Expert does twice that, no rolling). Crafting is another one, eschewing the standard format and really just another way to Earn Income.
5. There is a lot of character customization. The customization is compartmentalized, so even if the system has a ton of feats, that’s like counting every invocation, knack, and other bit of customization altogether in 5e. However, you’re still going to be making a decision between some things every level, and that can be overwhelming to players (especially if they’re used to systems with poor or trap options, and they get analysis paralysis about what to pick) or disappointing to them (if they expect to win the game through character building before the session instead of skillful play during).

I would also add that the skill action economy (a personal dislike of mine, so not going in the list) makes things unnecessarily harder on the GM. Every skill action has its own sets of degrees of success, which makes internalizing all the things PCs can do more difficult. I never felt like I had a handle on it even after running PF2 for a year or so. While I’d like to have the VP subsystem there by default, I would also be fine with some kind of “basic skill check” like Paizo did for basic saving throws with standard results (so you don’t have every damage spell repeating the same degrees of success).

 

[Thomas Shey]

1. There is a lot of character customization. The customization is compartmentalized, so even if the system has a ton of feats, that’s like counting every invocation, knack, and other bit of customization altogether in 5e. However, you’re still going to be making a decision between some things every level, and that can be overwhelming to players (especially if they’re used to systems with poor or trap options, and they get analysis paralysis about what to pick) or disappointing to them (if they expect to win the game through character building before the session instead of skillful play during).

I have mixed feelings about some of your other points, but regarding this one, the fact people carry over trauma or expectations from other D&D games doesn't seem a good reason to limit customization. Less choices is always simpler than more choices, but at some point that's too high a price to pay for simplicity.

 

[kenada]

I have mixed feelings about some of your other points, but regarding this one, the fact people carry over trauma or expectations from other D&D games doesn't seem a good reason to limit customization. Less choices is always simpler than more choices, but at some point that's too high a price to pay for simplicity.

It’s not an argument against customization but rather how it affects the onboarding experience.

 

[Lojaan]

I have mixed feelings about some of your other points, but regarding this one, the fact people carry over trauma or expectations from other D&D games doesn't seem a good reason to limit customization. Less choices is always simpler than more choices, but at some point that's too high a price to pay for simplicity.

I understand your concern, but this is a common misconception. It is not about limiting customization. It is about not letting customization negatively impact on-boarding (the new player experience). Setting these two in opposition is lose-lose for the game.

PF2 seems to get away with questionable choices with the excuse of "it's crunchy". Sure sometimes it is, and sometimes it has unnecessary rules or systems, and in some places it is terribly bloated, and sometimes great rules or systems are presented in a way that makes the information really inaccessible for people who are not already familiar with the system.

Before anyone gets angry - 5e is exactly the same. We've been picking 5e apart and personalizing it for almost a decade now. We're not trying to tear PF down or ruin it for anyone. We're trying to bring our players over, and to make the transition as smooth as possible.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s not an argument against customization but rather how it affects the onboarding experience.

But in practice, I think it is. Any customization with mechanical teeth is provide some degree of the two problems you mention, especially in the D&D-sphere. The only way to avoid it is to avoid there being any real decisions that matter.

Basically, I'm not aware of a single game (in or out of the D&D sphere) with any degree of meaningful customization that doesn't create decision paralysis or some degree of attempt to cook the books. The first is most likely unavoidable, and the second is an intrinsic problem with some approaches to character creation. The only way to avoid them is to avoid any decisions that mean anything (or at least, to the degree you avoid them you reduce such meaningful decisions).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I understand your concern, but this is a common misconception. It is not about limiting customization. It is about not letting customization negatively impact on-boarding (the new player experience). Setting these two in opposition is lose-lose for the game.

As you can see, I'm afraid I believe its just that. Can you point at an example of a game with decent, mechanically meaningful customization that does not have this problem? (I make no promises I'll agree with your characterization; note I carefully have inserted "mechanically meaningful" every time I've brought this up.)

 

[Staffan]

As you can see, I'm afraid I believe its just that. Can you point at an example of a game with decent, mechanically meaningful customization that does not have this problem? (I make no promises I'll agree with your characterization; note I carefully have inserted "mechanically meaningful" every time I've brought this up.)

The Troubleshooters produces mechanically distinct characters with significantly less crunch than PF2 does. Characters in the Troubleshooters are primarily mechanically distinguished by two things:

• Skills. There's a list of 28 percentile-based skills. A character has 15 in skills they're unskilled in, the highest you can start with is 85, and the absolute max is 106 (although skills above 100 is mostly an academic matter given how modifiers work in the system). A character typically starts with 75 in one skill, 65 in four, and 45 in six.
• Abilities. These are binary abilities, similar to feats, and usually tied to one or more skills. These provide differentiation between people with similar skills. Two characters might both have high Charm skills, but one might be Cheerful and have Empathy, and another might have a Pet and be an Animal Friend.

Note that the system don't have any direct analogue to traditional ability scores. Things like Strength or Agility are skills just like Melee or Vehicles, and there's no "flow" of ability from one to the other. You can be a huge circus strongman with great Strength and still leave your Melee skill at 15, or a tiny little judo master without any Strength skill at all but a very high Melee skill.

The game deals with onboarding by basically providing various tiers of complexity in character generation:

1. The game comes with a set of seven pre-generated characters that are also included in demo materials.
2. There are a number of templates that have most of the mechanical stuff done already and offer a limited list of options regarding abilities, gear, and so on.
3. You can use a template as a starting point and modify it in various ways to match your particular vision of the character. For example, you might want to play a Student Athlete, so you start with the Elite Athlete template and swap out the Credit skill (you're on a scholarship, not a rich athlete with sponsorships) for Humanities (you need to keep your grades up, remember?).
4. Finally you can build a character from scratch.

 

[kenada]

But in practice, I think it is. Any customization with mechanical teeth is provide some degree of the two problems you mention, especially in the D&D-sphere. The only way to avoid it is to avoid there being any real decisions that matter.

The Beginner Box seems to do a decent job of narrowing the options without eliminating choice completely.

Basically, I'm not aware of a single game (in or out of the D&D sphere) with any degree of meaningful customization that doesn't create decision paralysis or some degree of attempt to cook the books. The first is most likely unavoidable, and the second is an intrinsic problem with some approaches to character creation. The only way to avoid them is to avoid any decisions that mean anything (or at least, to the degree you avoid them you reduce such meaningful decisions).

In our off weeks, my group plays an adventure board game called Middara. It has very crunchy character building. The way they handle onboarding is by starting you off with a set build depending on your character. After you graduate (quite literally in the story), you then get to rebuild your character how you’d like. That seems like a pretty decent approach. By the time we got to rebuild our characters, we had a feel for the system and how things worked. I think it would have been too intimidating if we were just dumped into all the options up front.

For Pathfinder 2e, one approach might be to start a new player off with a pregen then let them rebuild once they are comfortable with the system. You could tie to the completion of an adventure/milestone, but I don’t think that’s strictly necessary.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The Beginner Box seems to do a decent job of narrowing the options without eliminating choice completely.

Note I never said it was all-or-nothing. Its absolutely a matter of degree.

But I don't think its that illogical to say the more you narrow the options you narrow the choices. Its pretty much a direct relationship.

In our off weeks, my group plays an adventure board game called Middara. It has very crunchy character building. The way they handle onboarding is by starting you off with a set build depending on your character. After you graduate (quite literally in the story), you then get to rebuild your character how you’d like. That seems like a pretty decent approach. By the time we got to rebuild our characters, we had a feel for the system and how things worked. I think it would have been too intimidating if we were just dumped into all the options up front.

For Pathfinder 2e, one approach might be to start a new player off with a pregen then let them rebuild once they are comfortable with the system. You could tie to the completion of an adventure/milestone, but I don’t think that’s strictly necessary.

That seems to be reasonable.

Edit: To add a specific comment, the virtue here is that you're not eternally stuck with a pregen structure just because it allowed initial buy-in to be easy. That's often a flaw in template and similar systems.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The Troubleshooters produces mechanically distinct characters with significantly less crunch than PF2 does. Characters in the Troubleshooters are primarily mechanically distinguished by two things:

• Skills. There's a list of 28 percentile-based skills. A character has 15 in skills they're unskilled in, the highest you can start with is 85, and the absolute max is 106 (although skills above 100 is mostly an academic matter given how modifiers work in the system). A character typically starts with 75 in one skill, 65 in four, and 45 in six.
• Abilities. These are binary abilities, similar to feats, and usually tied to one or more skills. These provide differentiation between people with similar skills. Two characters might both have high Charm skills, but one might be Cheerful and have Empathy, and another might have a Pet and be an Animal Friend.

Note that the system don't have any direct analogue to traditional ability scores. Things like Strength or Agility are skills just like Melee or Vehicles, and there's no "flow" of ability from one to the other. You can be a huge circus strongman with great Strength and still leave your Melee skill at 15, or a tiny little judo master without any Strength skill at all but a very high Melee skill.

I've encountered other systems that take that approach; most of the Third Eye Games take that tact.

In regard to the rest of this--again, I'm not suggesting this is a binary all-or-nothing--but the structure you describe does, to my view, provide less ability to distinguish characters than one that has more options. As I said, my position is that there's no level of customization you can't cut back and make for less design paralysis. But you won't eliminate it. Its simply a question of how much you're willing to sacrifice to reduce it how far.

I just place a great degree of value in customization, so I'm very aware of how these lines go, and its become very clear it really comes down to cost-to-value.

The game deals with onboarding by basically providing various tiers of complexity in character generation:

1. The game comes with a set of seven pre-generated characters that are also included in demo materials.
2. There are a number of templates that have most of the mechanical stuff done already and offer a limited list of options regarding abilities, gear, and so on.
3. You can use a template as a starting point and modify it in various ways to match your particular vision of the character. For example, you might want to play a Student Athlete, so you start with the Elite Athlete template and swap out the Credit skill (you're on a scholarship, not a rich athlete with sponsorships) for Humanities (you need to keep your grades up, remember?).
4. Finally you can build a character from scratch.

As I said to Keneda, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with any of that--but note that as you go up this list, the easier it is to onboard, the less options you've given them.

 

[fjw70]

I have been watching some PF2 videos on YouTube and it seems way more complicated than it need to be. For example, do we really need separate terminology for unnoticed and undetected?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I have been watching some PF2 videos on YouTube and it seems way more complicated than it need to be. For example, do we really need separate terminology for unnoticed and undetected?

They are two very different states, the problem is that there isn't really a good terminology to distinguish them. Unnoticed is that no one suspects anyone is there. Undetected is that you know something is there, but you have no clue where it is. Hidden is that you have a rough idea of where something is, and observed is that you know where it is.

Unnoticed: "I'm alone in the room."

Undetected: "I am not alone in the room."

Hidden: "There is someone behind the boxes over there."

Observed: "I can see someone behind the blue box over there."

 

[fjw70]

They are two very different states, the problem is that there isn't really a good terminology to distinguish them. Unnoticed is that no one suspects anyone is there. Undetected is that you know something is there, but you have no clue where it is. Hidden is that you have a rough idea of where something is, and observed is that you know where it is.

Unnoticed: "I'm alone in the room."

Undetected: "I am not alone in the room."

Hidden: "There is someone behind the boxes over there."

Observed: "I can see someone behind the blue box over there."

I wouldn’t say they are very different but there is a difference there. I am just not sure there needs to be a game terminology for both of them. The circumstances are going to distinguish them.

Are there any game mechanics that key off these two differently?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I wouldn’t say they are very different but there is a difference there. I am just not sure there needs to be a game terminology for both of them. The circumstances are going to distinguish them.

Are there any game mechanics that key off these two differently?

I mean, when you know an invisible person is in the room versus when you don't is the obvious one. Otherwise it acts as an intermediate step between "Guard doesn't know you are there" and "Guard has an idea of where you are". It's a useful step because when you mess up, unless you critically fail you have a chance to distract or simply avoid the guard rather than the guard immediately zeroing in on you.

So it's sort of like ablative stealth armor for players, giving them a chance to do something instead of getting immediately hemmed in. I've seen this happen in other games because there's no real guidance as to what to do on a stealth failure, and people instantly default "They know where you are" or "They have a good idea of where you are".

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, the answer is "We either have separate terms for the situations, or we just clumsily describe them". Both (and even to some extent all three) are not exactly uncommon situations. Its unfortunate that the terms are a little ambiguous, but language options are what they are.