Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[Thomas Shey]

Thanks for talking to your GM and getting more information on how he’s been running it. It had seemed that there was a trend of groups sticking closely to the modules having problems, but that seems more or less what yours is doing, and the GM is actually upping the difficultly occasionally. I’m at a loss to explain the difference.

Well, honestly, since no one seems to be able to put a finger on what the difference is--I'd say a big part of it would be just how much players are actually paying attention to what they're doing rather than dropping into autopilot, but it doesn't necessarily sound like that's the explanation in Graham's group, so maybe I'm wrong--I'm hard pressed to see what Paizo could have even done about that. When you're getting vastly different experiences with no obvious cause, its hard to fix or even give GM's proper advice.

I mean, honestly, it could just be an artifact of dice variation since D20's are such a big swing and crits and fumbles can matter quite a bit in PF2e.

 

[dave2008]

That's very fine for them, but we're still talking about the game system that from the start notoriously dropped so many magic swords people were handing them out to henchmen as better ones came along. "Low magic item" has never described the game; the only difference in later incarnations is that D&D4e and Pathfinder2e actually took the implications of that seriously.

I understand people play that way, but even in 1e I never handed out much loot (other than gold). Now, I don't think we ever got above lvl 8-9 in my many years of DMing 1e. I did the same in 4e. Up to lvl 11 the most any PC had as one +1 (or equivalent) magic item. Now, we never ran published adventures, so we never ran into "..so many magic swords..." issue. Heck, we didn't have henchmen. My point is the game itself doesn't require you to have a bunch of magic items, it can be played without them.

If PF2 does requiring, that is a serious strike against it in my eyes. In fact, from what I can tell "stiking runes" are required for fighters to keep pace. That is something I don't like as well. Now, this is all from a DM / World building perspective, not from a player perspective. As a player I don't really care that much. But it really bothers me as a DM.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I understand people play that way, but even in 1e I never handed out much loot (other than gold).

I think "people play that way" is an understatement, though; when a game has treasure tables for common use (which go all the way back to OD&D) I think its fair to say that's the default way to play, and games that avoid that are the exception.

Now, I don't think we ever got above lvl 8-9 in my many years of DMing 1e. I did the same in 4e. Up to lvl 11 the most any PC had as one +1 (or equivalent) magic item. Now, we never ran published adventures, so we never ran into "..so many magic swords..." issue. Heck, we didn't have henchmen. My point is the game itself doesn't require you to have a bunch of magic items, it can be played without them.

Well, if you could do so in 4e without adjustments I'm actually shocked. But the reason that worked in 2e and earlier D&D was that the games had no sense of balance worth mentioning and until you got a feel for things it was easy for a combat to be really over or underpowered, so the presence of magic items was just one more thing you had to work out by look-and-feel.

If PF2 does requiring, that is a serious strike against it in my eyes. In fact, from what I can tell "stiking runes" are required for fighters to keep pace. That is something I don't like as well. Now, this is all from a DM / World building perspective, not from a player perspective. As a player I don't really care that much. But it really bothers me as a DM.

I'm uncertain how one could have reasonable encounter balance guidelines without factoring in magic items that increased the damage output of fighting types one way or another. It doesn't seem possible to me, frankly.

 

[GrahamWills]

Well, honestly, since no one seems to be able to put a finger on what the difference is--I'd say a big part of it would be just how much players are actually paying attention to what they're doing rather than dropping into autopilot, but it doesn't necessarily sound like that's the explanation in Graham's group, so maybe I'm wrong--I'm hard pressed to see what Paizo could have even done about that. When you're getting vastly different experiences with no obvious cause, its hard to fix or even give GM's proper advice.

I mean, honestly, it could just be an artifact of dice variation since D20's are such a big swing and crits and fumbles can matter quite a bit in PF2e.

Just had another chat with my GM and I believe I overstated the ease with which we succeeded. He reminded me that people have been knocked unconscious, several times, and that although no encounter looked close to a TPK, a fight with a bear was, in his opinion, very nasty, and did down two people, at least briefly. After discussing this thread with him, he thinks that the differences are likely due to: (a) our group having two highly experienced tactical players (b) the scaling for five players makes it easier for groups of four than five (c) he believes we almost always take advantage of non-combat and bonus activities that help combat.

 

[nevin]

It seems to me based on what i've read in interviews with dev for PF2E that they have a very strong idea and expectation of what "proper" playstyle is. I think that is thier biggest problem. They can't see anything but what's in thier tunnel.

 

[dave2008]

I think "people play that way" is an understatement, though; when a game has treasure tables for common use (which go all the way back to OD&D) I think its fair to say that's the default way to play, and games that avoid that are the exception.

Sure, but I can only base things on my experience. I'm not saying what is or isn't default or even common. I am just saying it doesn't require magic items. So if you want to play it with few or even none, you absolutely can.

Well, if you could do so in 4e without adjustments I'm actually shocked. But the reason that worked in 2e and earlier D&D was that the games had no sense of balance worth mentioning and until you got a feel for things it was easy for a combat to be really over or underpowered, so the presence of magic items was just one more thing you had to work out by look-and-feel.

I never said we did so without adjustments. Though we actually didn't use any, but if we had continued we would have. Up to level 10 in 4e it works fine with nothing more than +1 weapon.

I'm uncertain how one could have reasonable encounter balance guidelines without factoring in magic items that increased the damage output of fighting types one way or another. It doesn't seem possible to me, frankly.

If you have seen my posts in some of the other threads, I don't balance encounters. In fact, I don't even want to balance encounters. Again, i came from 1e where that wasn't a thing and that is how I prefer to design my adventures.

Now, I don't mind a game being "balanced," but I prefer it to be balanced without magic items (or it is easy to re-balance without magic items). I think it can be done without an issue. You mention increased damage from magic. Among other options you can do it with magic: PF2 striking runes, or skill: 4e martial exploits or 5e expertise dice. I just prefer the non-magic option. For instance, if I DM's PF2 I would remove striking runes and allow martials to do more damage based on their skill level (can't remember what they are in PF2) or something similar.

PS I would also remove the level bonus per the GMG.

 

[Retreater]

If they didn't intend people to run their game "by the book," maybe releasing a highly codified 600+ page Core Rulebook wasn't the right way to go with it? As was pointed out above, no one would mistake a game like Old School Essentials to be a "by the book" kind of game (except, perhaps, my current GM). That game also isn't presented as a mammoth tome of character options.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Just had another chat with my GM and I believe I overstated the ease with which we succeeded. He reminded me that people have been knocked unconscious, several times, and that although no encounter looked close to a TPK, a fight with a bear was, in his opinion, very nasty, and did down two people, at least briefly. After discussing this thread with him, he thinks that the differences are likely due to: (a) our group having two highly experienced tactical players (b) the scaling for five players makes it easier for groups of four than five (c) he believes we almost always take advantage of non-combat and bonus activities that help combat.

Well, in that case, it gets back to the basic premise I and some others have had; PF2e is more sensitive than many incarnations of D&D to player engagement. It aims for a certain minimum of tactical engagement, but if you're above that (or utilize the opportunity to do reconnaissance and other information gathering, and possibly stealth) you're going to find some parts easier, and if everyone just sort of gets in a rut like that YouTuber talks about, its going to be harder. That seems entirely in keeping with the design.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, but I can only base things on my experience. I'm not saying what is or isn't default or even common. I am just saying it doesn't require magic items. So if you want to play it with few or even none, you absolutely can.

I have no doubt you can. Whether that favors some classes and types is a different argument though (and barring other rules I think it absolutely favors spellcasters).

I never said we did so without adjustments. Though we actually didn't use any, but if we had continued we would have. Up to level 10 in 4e it works fine with nothing more than +1 weapon.

If you have seen my posts in some of the other threads, I don't balance encounters. In fact, I don't even want to balance encounters. Again, i came from 1e where that wasn't a thing and that is how I prefer to design my adventures.

I suspect to one degree or another you do and don't even realize it. Every D&D GM I ever saw in my life did. Its just part of the basic thought process of putting things together.

I mean, let me ask a simple question: do you have a setup where first level characters are liable to run without warning into an old Red Dragon or a high level demon? If not, that's balancing encounters. Past that, everything is simply a matter of how much effort and to what degree you do so.

Now, I don't mind a game being "balanced," but I prefer it to be balanced without magic items (or it is easy to re-balance without magic items). I think it can be done without an issue. You mention increased damage from magic. Among other options you can do it with magic: PF2 striking runes, or skill: 4e martial exploits or 5e expertise dice. I just prefer the non-magic option. For instance, if I DM's PF2 I would remove striking runes and allow martials to do more damage based on their skill level (can't remember what they are in PF2) or something similar.

PS I would also remove the level bonus per the GMG.

And you can absolutely do that in PF2e. Since items have associated levels (though they aren't as hard-coded as in Starfinder) you just make that a class feature for martial classes at those levels.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

The magic items are necessary to keep up with the monsters (which was the result of playtest surveys, incidentally), but Paizo knows not everyone loves that, so they made this for you in the Gamemastery Guide. I'm moving to this for my upcoming West Marches game, so that Treasure can be way more laissez faire than it was in my 'normal' campaign (to facilitate that game structure.)