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).