Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[GrahamWills]

I'm afraid the idea that PF2e takes longer to play out than other games in the D&D-sphere is exactly the opposite of my experience.

Yeah, it plays pretty fast. Just finished off with our level 20 characters and maybe 25% slower than at low levels -- maybe? The single reaction is a big plus, especially since "ready" can only be used for single actions (so very few spells can be readied). It just flows very naturally. My character was a warpriest / champion / bard / mauler with 2 sets of different spell lists (20+ spells, some vancian, others not), 5 different reacts, 4 or so special actions and maybe 20 or so consumables, and I'd use a lot of them in a day's adventuring, but the system makes it pretty smooth to select between them. It seemed the same for others, as the player who would take 5 minutes on their D&D4E turn would take 20 seconds on their PF2 turn.

Combats are a bit slower than in Savage Worlds; 2-3x slower than Fate, BPR and GUMSHOE; slightly faster than Classic Deadlands; 2-3x faster than D&D3 and D&D4E. Haven't played any high level 5E to comparison against that (I got kinda bored of the minimal character choices mid-level) but from the little I ddi play, probably just a little slower.

Anyone have experience playing and running 5e and PF2 at mid-high levels (12+) with the same people who might be able to comment on the playing speeds?

 

[kenada]

I can only comment at the old sweet spot (low-mid): it’s pretty quick. I’m happy to hear that that still holds more or less at higher levels.

The official forums are pretty heavily slanted towards character building and optimization, so I just don’t participate in those discussions. However, I think it’s a fair observation. I tried listing to Know Direction to hear what they had to say about difficulty, and I had to wade through so much garbage about house rules for character building.

I’ll also reiterate my belief that those of us doing non-AP things with PF2 need more visibility and a louder voice. Threads like the one here about Age of Ashes are a bit disheartening when the problems that prompted them are not really an issue when the game is run differently (e.g., more old-school). It’ll probably take an actual play or big (but independent) streamer doing something else to shift the zeitgeist though.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its not even the AP play that ends up being the real problem (though as this thread shows, that can be an issue); its the people who's response to any discussion of house rules--even minor ones--for various issues is to put their hand up because it won't help them with organized play.

I mean, I understand that organized play is part of what's kept D&D and Pathfinder as viable as they are, but at some point it becomes an albatross to actually talking about the game.

 

[kenada]

Its not even the AP play that ends up being the real problem (though as this thread shows, that can be an issue); its the people who's response to any discussion of house rules--even minor ones--for various issues is to put their hand up because it won't help them with organized play.

I mean, I understand that organized play is part of what's kept D&D and Pathfinder as viable as they are, but at some point it becomes an albatross to actually talking about the game.

People point fingers at PFS, but even PFS affords GMs more discretion than has been allowed here. The constraints imposed are completely arbitrary, though they do seem handy for making PF2 look bad in these discussions.

 

[Thomas Shey]

People point fingers at PFS, but even PFS affords GMs more discretion than has been allowed here. The constraints imposed are completely arbitrary, though they do seem handy for making PF2 look bad in these discussions.

May be, but I've seen PFS waved around repeatedly on the Paizo forum by different people, so I can't help but think its still producing the effect I described.

 

[MichaelSomething]

Jumping through a dozen mechanical loops is a small price to pay to sustain my sense of immersion.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Hey, I came across another excessively complicated Pathfinder rules interaction. After my less than stellar experience with my wizard, I thought I would try a sword and board fighter wielding a flail. The idea would be to attack twice, and on the last action, either raise the shield or attempt to trip or disarm (for a combat maneuver, such as trip, disarm or shove, you make an Athletics check against the target's Reflex DC (for trip or disarm) or Fortitude DC (for shove)) .

Naturally, the interaction between tripping and disarming and the multiple attack penalty is less than clear. Here is what the book says:

p. 446
Multiple Attack Penalty
"The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a -5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, on an any subsequent attacks, you take a -10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack actions like Shove, and many others."

Now, my interpretation of the MAP was that a maneuver was not an attack roll (since it is a skill check) but that it still counted towards your MAP. I.e. if I were to trip, attack, attack, my attacks would be at -5 and -10, but if I attack, attack, trip, my trip would be at my regular Athletics check, since a skill check is not an attack roll. While it bugged me a little that the order of my actions affected the penalties, this can happen in other occasions in PF2, and I felt that it encouraged team play, since if I ended with a trip, I benefited the rest of the party rather than trying for an unlikely crit with a 3rd attack.

I learned today that other PF2 players interpreted that section differently, concluding that all combat maneuvers were attack rolls, so an attack, attack, trip would mean the Athletics check would be at a -10 (strongly disincentivised since unlike attacks, all combat maneuvers include critical failures).

Their interpretation was in part based on the Pathfinder Playtest (which was apparently clearer, I wouldn't know, I didn't participate in it) and in part on the definition of "Attack Rolls" (on p. 446 of the CRB), which reads:

Attack Rolls
"When you use a Strike Action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll." The definition goes on for a full column, and references melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls and spell attack rolls. It doesn't include a single mention of a skill check or Combat Maneuver, which means that it was still ambiguous to me.

Note that this second interpretation allows spells (or circumstances) that give a bonus to attack rolls to apply to combat maneuvers.

Naturally, this ambiguity was the subject of the CRB errata. I feel kind of vindicated by the fact that faced with two possible interpretations, each of which was based in the written text, Paizo opted for a third interpretation, which didn't have any interpretation in the text.

Yep, Paizo decided that the skill checks for Combat Maneuvers were NOT attack rolls, but that MAP applied to them anyway. So that means that status and circumstance bonuses to attack rolls do not apply to combat maneuvers.

So there's that.

 

[nevin]

Jumping through a dozen mechanical loops is a small price to pay to sustain my sense of immersion.

This i dont get. For me the hoops destroy the immersion

 

[kenada]

Hey, I came across another excessively complicated Pathfinder rules interaction. After my less than stellar experience with my wizard, I thought I would try a sword and board fighter wielding a flail. The idea would be to attack twice, and on the last action, either raise the shield or attempt to trip or disarm (for a combat maneuver, such as trip, disarm or shove, you make an Athletics check against the target's Reflex DC (for trip or disarm) or Fortitude DC (for shove)) .

Naturally, the interaction between tripping and disarming and the multiple attack penalty is less than clear. Here is what the book says:

p. 446
Multiple Attack Penalty
"The more attacks you make beyond your first in a single turn, the less accurate you become, represented by the multiple attack penalty. The second time you use an attack action during your turn, you take a -5 penalty to your attack roll. The third time you attack, on an any subsequent attacks, you take a -10 penalty to your attack roll. Every check that has the attack trait counts toward your multiple attack penalty, including Strikes, spell attack actions like Shove, and many others."

Now, my interpretation of the MAP was that a maneuver was not an attack roll (since it is a skill check) but that it still counted towards your MAP. I.e. if I were to trip, attack, attack, my attacks would be at -5 and -10, but if I attack, attack, trip, my trip would be at my regular Athletics check, since a skill check is not an attack roll. While it bugged me a little that the order of my actions affected the penalties, this can happen in other occasions in PF2, and I felt that it encouraged team play, since if I ended with a trip, I benefited the rest of the party rather than trying for an unlikely crit with a 3rd attack.

I learned today that other PF2 players interpreted that section differently, concluding that all combat maneuvers were attack rolls, so an attack, attack, trip would mean the Athletics check would be at a -10 (strongly disincentivised since unlike attacks, all combat maneuvers include critical failures).

Their interpretation was in part based on the Pathfinder Playtest (which was apparently clearer, I wouldn't know, I didn't participate in it) and in part on the definition of "Attack Rolls" (on p. 446 of the CRB), which reads:

Attack Rolls
"When you use a Strike Action or any other attack action, you attempt a check called an attack roll." The definition goes on for a full column, and references melee attack rolls, ranged attack rolls and spell attack rolls. It doesn't include a single mention of a skill check or Combat Maneuver, which means that it was still ambiguous to me.

Note that this second interpretation allows spells (or circumstances) that give a bonus to attack rolls to apply to combat maneuvers.

Naturally, this ambiguity was the subject of the CRB errata. I feel kind of vindicated by the fact that faced with two possible interpretations, each of which was based in the written text, Paizo opted for a third interpretation, which didn't have any interpretation in the text.

Yep, Paizo decided that the skill checks for Combat Maneuvers were NOT attack rolls, but that MAP applied to them anyway. So that means that status and circumstance bonuses to attack rolls do not apply to combat maneuvers.

So there's that.

I have very limited enthusiasm for how this all played out. I can devise a conceptual model to handle it: there are different types of checks, and an attack roll is different from a skill check; but there are so many unintuitive consequences (like the issue you cite with bonuses). Instead of leaning on the traits system to categorize things, we have also have to make sure we are making the right kind of check. Bleh.

I don’t think this is an indictment of the system per se, but I do think it’s evidence that it requires stronger writing chops and a commitment to the underlying structure than we have seen so far. I fee a bit disillusioned about it right now, but what I would rather run (OSE) isn’t an option.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I almost forgot the last part of my post!

So, in order to avoid the MAP when using Combat Maneuvers, you need to get a skill feat.

"Assurance (Athletics)
You can forgo rolling a skill (Athletics) check for that skill to receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses penalties or modifiers)."

From a game perspective, this skill feat is pretty weird. Having natural skill doesn't affect your chance of success, having a spell that improves your skill checks doesn't affect your chance of success, having a tool that improves your Combat Maneuvers (like the flail) doesn't affect your chance of success, only your character level and your level of training do, which doesn't make much sense from the perspective of the in-game fiction.

In addition, it seems like the skill feat is drafted in such a way so that you wouldn't necessarily think of using it with Combat Maneuvers. It doesn't mention Combat Maneuvers or MAP in the description. It's kind of as if not communicating clearly was the goal.