Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Thomas Shey]

Its more likely a case that the people writing the feat simply weren't thinking about its application to Combat Manuevers, and thus didn't phrase it in a way where it'd clearly apply, but the people working on the Manuever mechanics clearly did. This is one of the areas where a really strong editorial hand is needed, and frankly, rarely exists in the industry.

 

[CapnZapp]

I got burned out on trying to convince readers of this thread how insanely complicated and full of little rules niggles Pathfinder 2 is, if y'all are curious why I dropped out of the thread.

Now at 15th level, I am even more convinced that if Paizo aimed to create a clean clear ruleset in PF2, they failed.

Yes, at first sight the three-action system and cleaned up statistics give hope PF2 would be simpler to run than PF1.

But boy do actual play experience burn that hope to the ground. PF2 is insanely complicated and messy. Often for no discernible reason.

 

[kenada]

We were going in circles, so I don’t blame you. Personally, the errata left me feeling a bit disillusioned.

What’s allowed me to manage PF2’s complexity is the modular structure. I’ve said that here several times, so I won’t go into it again. The errata threatened to expose that as a façade, and maybe it still did in the end. I’m not sure right now. I really didn’t like the mess they made of attacks and MAP. I have devised a conceptual model around it, but I don’t feel like we should really need multiple ways to classify actions. Just use traits for everything! Anyway, I was disappointed that the errata didn’t address the difficulty issue but instead muddled things up for no gain (or more like a loss for characters who wanted to do combat maneuvers with finesse weapons).

I’m at a point where I’d rather just run OSE. I appreciate the fact that PF2 is a crunchy system that lets me run the kind of game I do. I’ve said it probably here and definitely in other threads, but it actually seems better suited towards that style of play than the kind of kick-in-the-door game you’re doing. I have a mental model that lets me manage the game, so I’ll keep doing it as long as my players want to keep going (until I eventually say “no more!” like I did PF1). I’m not sure I could properly articulate a principle why I’d rather run OSE except that it presents its rules with outstanding clarity. I’d love if someone did that to PF2. I just don’t want to be the one to do it.

 

[Retreater]

I hear ya. After close to a year of play, I decided I just couldn't handle PF2 anymore. Honestly, it's part of the reason I'm going to OSR systems. (GMing Swords & Wizardry and playing in OSE.) I'm just burned out.

I’m not sure I could properly articulate a principle why I’d rather run OSE except that it presents its rules with outstanding clarity. I’d love if someone did that to PF2. I just don’t want to be the one to do it.

I don't know if it would be possible to present the rules clearly based on the amount of rules there. It could be "untangled," simplified, and presented differently. I was hoping the Beginner Box would do that, but it seems that they are just presenting "all the rules" for levels 1-3. Assuming that someone doesn't like the PF2 system, I think it's just easier to take whatever fluff people want from the Pathfinder world and find a way to port it to a system that is more to their liking instead of trying to fix PF2.
For me, I don't use fluff from their settings. To get me back on board they'll have to come up with some sort of PF 2.5, Essentials, or something like that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, I'll be clear here; I don't think exception based design can be really easy to understand, clear in play, mechanically engaging and allow a reasonable amount of character distinction all at the same time. I think somewhere you're going to fail at least one of those criteria as long as you have exception based design, and no D&D derivative has the tools to avoid that while still fitting my last two criteria (note I don't say one couldn't, but it'd be a more radical departure from anything that's come before than D&D 3e was). And I'm quite unwilling to sacrifice the last two which is why so far I've considered PF2e about as close as I'm going to get to a satisfactory D&D derivative; I've found any issues with it an acceptable compromise.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Hmm, GM of a level 17 group here finishing up our first campaign, I'm still confused as to how some people find this game anywhere near as complicated as a pre-5e (3.5e / Pathfinder / 4e) system, it mostly runs pretty cleanly-- my only players who have problems are the ones that are pretty much completely unwilling to learn what their stuff does before they use it. Things like the aforementioned errata are a little odd, but in the end its pretty clear from the FAQ that the confusion was due to vestigial language:

Page 446: Attack Rolls. There was some confusion as to whether skill checks with the attack trait (such as Grapple or Trip) are also attack rolls at the same time. They are not. To make this clear, add this sentence to the beginning of the definition of attack roll "When you use a Strike action or make a spell attack, you attempt a check called an attack roll."

To clarify the different rules elements involved:

An attack is any check that has the attack trait. It applies and increases the multiple attack penalty.

An attack roll is one of the core types of checks in the game (along with saving throws, skill checks, and Perception checks). They are used for Strikes and spell attacks, and traditionally target Armor Class.

Some skill actions have the attack trait, specifically Athletics actions such as Grapple and Trip. You still make a skill check with these skills, not an attack roll.

The multiple attack penalty applies on those skill actions as well. As it says later on in the definition of attack roll "Striking multiple times in a turn has diminishing returns. The multiple attack penalty (detailed on page 446) applies to each attack after the first, whether those attacks are Strikes, special attacks like the Grapple action of the Athletics skill, or spell attack rolls." There is inaccurate language in the Multiple Attack Penalty section implying it applies only to attack rolls that will be receiving errata.

There's a lot of total game there, and its meaty in a simulation sense, but the rules are pretty easy to digest in its component pieces.

 

[Retreater]

Hmm, GM of a level 17 group here finishing up our first campaign, I'm still confused as to how some people find this game anywhere near as complicated as a pre-5e (3.5e / Pathfinder / 4e) system, it mostly runs pretty cleanly-- my only players who have problems are the ones that are pretty much completely unwilling to learn what their stuff does before they use it. Things like the aforementioned errata are a little odd, but in the end its pretty clear from the FAQ that the confusion was due to vestigial language:

I think 4e was a much less complicated system. The entirety of PF2 to me feels like the grapple rules from 3.x. The exception based design is like "sometimes a check works like this, sometimes that." Case in point is the disarm/trip/shove example above. Sometimes multiple attacks put their penalties on each attack, sometimes it doesn't (depending on feats, monster abilities, class abilities). Sometimes those penalties change due to weapon factors (agile, sweeping, etc). Nearly every spell has different effects based on failure, critical failure, critical success, regular success. Or if you upcast it, which is sometimes automatic and sometimes not. And when it is upcast, your character level isn't the spell level. And then all those effects can be different based on the number of casting actions you use.
Nearly every condition has four different ranks. There are dozens of different conditions.
Some characters get reactions, some don't. Some get different ones. You have to track damage to shields and other equipment, using Hardness in every combat and every attack. So most warrior combatants are tracking at least two HP lists.
Initiative is rolled in various ways, kept separately for every single opponent.
I can continue if you'd like.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I think 4e was a much less complicated system. The entirety of PF2 to me feels like the grapple rules from 3.x. The exception based design is like "sometimes a check works like this, sometimes that." Case in point is the disarm/trip/shove example above. Sometimes multiple attacks put their penalties on each attack, sometimes it doesn't (depending on feats, monster abilities, class abilities). Sometimes those penalties change due to weapon factors (agile, sweeping, etc). Nearly every spell has different effects based on failure, critical failure, critical success, regular success. Or if you upcast it, which is sometimes automatic and sometimes not. And when it is upcast, your character level isn't the spell level. And then all those effects can be different based on the number of casting actions you use.
Nearly every condition has four different ranks. There are dozens of different conditions.
Some characters get reactions, some don't. Some get different ones. You have to track damage to shields and other equipment, using Hardness in every combat and every attack. So most warrior combatants are tracking at least two HP lists.
Initiative is rolled in various ways, kept separately for every single opponent.
I can continue if you'd like.

Nah thats fine, I understand what you're saying, I just don't understand how any of the examples constitute being harder than the systems I mentioned. They all had more categories of floating bonuses, including untyped ones, as well as math fixer feats, that made the math more substantial (I still remember the Swordmage I had in 4e, who used escalating assault to get another cumulative +1 each time he attacked, I remember Wintertouched + Lasting Frost, Weapon Expertise feats, and so on, and so on- a Unity avenger in one of my games literally had a spreadsheet he could use to figure out his bonus in different situations.)

The exception based design, like with the trip/disarm/whatever situation, is actually clear by itself-- it was unclear because they left in language from an earlier draft. Exception based design makes it clearer because if something makes something work different, it actively says so. Degrees of success are the same deal, you read the spell and do what it says to do.

I'm confused by how most of these constitute "more complexity" like, degrees of success on spells is complex but arcane spell failure rolls wasn't?

 

[Retreater]

The exception based design, like with the trip/disarm/whatever situation, is actually clear by itself-- it was unclear because they left in language from an earlier draft. Exception based design makes it clearer because if something makes something work different, it actively says so. Degrees of success are the same deal, you read the spell and do what it says to do.

Because every single time you cast a spell, you have to consult the spell entry. Whereas in previous editions, the spell worked or didn't (or maybe did half damage). Maybe it takes 1 action, 2, or 3 actions? Maybe it changes based on the number of actions you do? It's the start of your turn, how many actions do you want to spend? You have one action left, do you have anything you can do for one action? Quick, and if you pick the wrong choice, your party will probably all suffer for it (because combats are so lethal). What are the keywords on your spell? Does the monster have resistances/immunities to that type of spell? It doesn't actually say in the monster description, I just have to know based on the type of monster it is.

Every weapon you use, consult the weapons chart to see what special qualities you unlock. In this special circumstance you can attempt to trip with it, maybe getting a bonus, maybe not. Maybe it provokes an opportunity attack? Maybe it uses an action to attempt? Maybe the creature gets a bonus based on size, number or legs, etc.? I get to compute the difficulty of the check by adding +10 to one of several other numbers, which change based on which maneuver is being performed? (I think.)

Are you frightened? That is a penalty based on your frightened rank. Or if the monster is frightened, maybe that applies to its trip DC? Or maybe it doesn't? Does it affect the damage rolled, to hit, its save DCs? Let's take a look at that.

It's not that there are rules. It's that they are spread out over 600+ pages. Everything informs the combat. Your feats, equipment, class abilities, skill training, etc.

Want to do a trip in 4e? You attack the monster's Fort defense. That's it.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'm confused by how most of these constitute "more complexity" like, degrees of success on spells is complex but arcane spell failure rolls wasn't?

I can’t speak to 3.5, which I didn’t play, but 4e was definitely simpler. Since most characters were on the same AEDU chassis, one you had that down for one character, you had it down for other characters. Plus 4e didn’t really go all in on circumstancial bonuses until PH3. Before then, it was pretty much combat advantage and that’s it.

I’m not even sure why your are bringing combat expertise into this, since that was exactly the type on bonus you could write on your sheet once you got the feat and then forget about (until you switched tiers in X levels).