Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Vael]

Admittedly, I can only talk about my singular experience, but the game went poorly enough that there will not be a second campaign with one of my current groups, and my other group is not likely to pick it up.

The 3 action economy is such a double-edged sword. On the one hand, there's clarity, otoh, I find it can really cramp a more improvisational game. It's the 4e problem, let me take the actions (or, in 4e's case, use the powers) that I have. One defaults to the buttons they have.

So, for my Oracle, it was cast a cantrip, fire a bow. Or use the Bon Mot skill action. Those were my 3 buttons. Since healing was difficult (the number of times we failed a bloody treat wound check is ... comical and intensely frustrating), I hoarded my spell slots. Sure, this was a low level adventure, but even in 5e, I felt less locked down. Hit Dice, people. WotC solved that problem far better than PF2.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Since I'm not being asked by Paizo to revise PF2 and my group has given up on the system for the time being, the effort to simplify Pathfinder 2e into something I'd run just isn't worth it. If I want a simpler version of the game, I'll play 5e or an OSR system. Pathfinder doesn't bring anything to the experience other than more crunch and customization options - and trying to take those away defeats its sole purpose, IMO.

If I do want something crunchier in the future, the way I'll go is likely to add some options to 5e rather than try to reduce Pathfinder.

I'd absolutely argue it also brings more meaningful decision making than at least 3e era D&D, too, but YMM(and apparently does)V.

 

[Zardnaar]

I find 3E easier to navigate than PF2.

There's probably a decent game in their sleep new here but the effort/reward ratio isn't high enough to invest much time or money into it.

 

[Retreater]

My players love character building. I’d love to switch to OSE, and I could force the switch if I decided unilaterally to stop running PF2, but there’s no enthusiasm (and some derision) for it from my players.

I’m going to look at the effect of axing skill actions (and boring skill feats that depend on them), but it may be they’re too deeply ingrained in the system.

That is exactly what my group did - well, technically one went to Swords & Wizardry (they're doing an initial playtest of one I'm writing for that system) and the other to Old School Essentials. Not everyone was on board at first and some players didn't come along because they were there for Pathfinder 2e - not the game or socialization. Which is fine. Ultimately, as the GM I'm putting in the most time on it, and as you can tell by my posts on these boards that I put a lot of worry into it as well. At the end of the day, I need to run what I want. If I'm not happy running the campaign, I'm doing a disservice to the whole table.
Unexpectedly, the player most against OSE is now running it in two groups. It has returned a lot of the joy in the game after years of 3.x/4e/Pathfinder/etc.
I sold my groups on going to OSR games not as a giving up on character options, but opening up more variety and player choice. "You don't need a feat to do X." And if they want to come up with skill training, combat maneuvers, I ask them "how did your character learn Goblin?" They can still spend time coming up with their characters' abilities, but it's up to their creativity and my rulings - not a 600+ page rulebook.

 

[Retreater]

I find 3E easier to navigate than PF2.

I find Mammoth Cave easier to navigate than PF2.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well, this thread does nothing if not show how different the perceptions and experiences of a game system are.

 

[Retreater]

Anyone got anything positive to say about this system? I was running a homebrew campaign in pf2e and quite enjoying it until lockdown hit, I've been spending what free time I have getting it up and running in foundry vtt, but reading this thread I'm wondering if it's worth the effort and I should try something else.

I enjoyed it much more in person than I did plugging everything into Roll20.
I have had fun with all editions of the game I've played (including 4e). As a tactical combat game, I can enjoy it. And it can do other things too (exploration, etc), but I don't think that's the strength of the system for me. If you can develop a system mastery of it, I'm sure it's a robust game. I just don't want to put the effort into it right now.
I've been GMing it for close to a year now and I still f' it up. I'm not a slouch in gaming either. I spend a lot of time reading rulebooks, running games, writing professionally in the hobby, reading articles and messageboards, etc. If I don't get it by now, it's too much in my perspective.

 

[kenada]

That is exactly what my group did - well, technically one went to Swords & Wizardry (they're doing an initial playtest of one I'm writing for that system) and the other to Old School Essentials. Not everyone was on board at first and some players didn't come along because they were there for Pathfinder 2e - not the game or socialization. Which is fine. Ultimately, as the GM I'm putting in the most time on it, and as you can tell by my posts on these boards that I put a lot of worry into it as well. At the end of the day, I need to run what I want. If I'm not happy running the campaign, I'm doing a disservice to the whole table.
Unexpectedly, the player most against OSE is now running it in two groups. It has returned a lot of the joy in the game after years of 3.x/4e/Pathfinder/etc.
I sold my groups on going to OSR games not as a giving up on character options, but opening up more variety and player choice. "You don't need a feat to do X." And if they want to come up with skill training, combat maneuvers, I ask them "how did your character learn Goblin?" They can still spend time coming up with their characters' abilities, but it's up to their creativity and my rulings - not a 600+ page rulebook.

Very cool. I’ll have to consider that tack. I’ve already floated the idea of doing a one-shot to one of my players (to test the waters). We have a side group just sitting outside a dungeon just waiting to go inside.

 

[Nilbog]

Well that seems a resounding no, so what system do people recommend that allows varied mechanical character builds, reasonable tactical combat and a nice choice of character options on level up, while still maintaining a semblance of balance?

Not interested in OSE stuff, tried em and we found stepping back too jarring, 13th age was ok but as I DM I hated the icon integration, and shadow of the demon lords setting wasn't our style. Am I heading back to the almost impossible task of 4e ( playing without an electronic character builder is so much fun)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Well that seems a resounding no, so what system do people recommend that allows varied mechanical character builds, reasonable tactical combat and a nice choice of character options on level up, while still maintaining a semblance of balance?

Not interested in OSE stuff, tried em and we found stepping back too jarring, 13th age was ok but as I DM I hated the icon integration, and shadow of the demon lords setting wasn't our style. Am I heading back to the almost impossible task of 4e ( playing without an electronic character builder is so much fun)

Honestly PF 2e is what I'd recommend if you want something in the D&D sphere. As I noted, this is just one of those cases where people's milage distinctly differs. Admittedly, I hadn't done a D&D derivative in a bit, but I found (for example) PF2e and D&D 3e (the last version I'd GMed) like night and day in how smoothly it played and easy it was to learn (which does not mean there isn't some learning curve, to be clear) in comparison. I've played a fighter from 2nd through 7th level, and a hyrbid Champion/Bard from 1st to 7th, and got to watch a cleric, sorcerer and monk play from 2nd to 7th, and a fighter/rogue, investigator/witch, sorcerer/oracle with the second group, and none of seeing them in play has changed my opinion.

Are there some corners of the system that aren't perfect? Absolutely. Its pretty visible there was some patching on the Alchemist in the recent errata, and there can be some expectation mismatch from people used to older editions about how wizards play out. The divine sorcerer apparently can feel underwhelming compared to a cloistered cleric. But on the whole its played well and been engaging while allowing a reasonable amount of customization.

There are two things one does have to be aware of going in, though:
1. Carrying through too much expectations about how things will play out from 3e D&D or PF 1e can catch you across the knees. In specific, while arcanists can perfectly well bring the party, they're much better at either group damage or debuffs than they are at outright taking out single opponents.
2. It is absolutely not a game you can sleepwalk through, or do all the work on character build and expect the character to be able to do all the heavy lifting from then on. You have to pay attention to what's going on in the game and adjust your actions accordingly. This will especially be true if you're playing in either of the first two Adventure Paths, which were a bit overtuned.