Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[kenada]

I don’t disagree with a lot of your points in the last couple of posts, but I do wonder about this last one.

That’s a fair question.

Suppose PF2 had kept the in-depth (and customizable) character creation and the interesting and complex tactical combat. Would this has scratched the itch of those players who enjoy that level of complexity?

It depends on the nature of that clutter. I took it as more than just a few subsystems that sometimes don’t work (or are terrible, like Recall Knowledge in combat). I took it as all the crunchy bits built on top of the core. If you kept the character creation and tactical combat, then it seems like you’d have about the same amount of clutter.

Could you streamline things by dropping modifiers? Eh. We used the “tactical module” in 5e, and flanking in that game just doesn’t feel the same. Also, my group doesn’t seem to care for advantage. It’s hard to reason about (“it just lets you reroll”) versus a concrete bonus.

I suspect that there is definitely an audience that loves character customization and tactical depth but also prefers a more freeform approach to the social and the exploration pillars.

Raises hand. That’s my game. I run a very old-school style game, and PF2 is a really good fit. Exploration works pretty well (though I’ve made some changes), and social situations can be handled with the VP subsystem (which is basically clocks). That event I described previously was a lot of fun.

This is also why I want to hear more from those who don’t run official adventures. Paizo has always designed them for a particular audience with a certain style (story-driven and combat-heavy), so the discourse ends up a bit distorted. Hearing from about how different people run the game helps paint a more complete picture of what it can do and how it works.

 

[dave2008]

The way it works in practice once you’ve picked your ABCs is that you only have a few options available at a time. If you’re not into optimization, you can just pick something that looks cool and not have to worry about the other options nor that you accidentally picked the wrong choice.

It is partially a presentation issue for me. I completely skipped 3e/PF1 because I didn't like the format. Just seeing all of those options, I kinda glaze over and push the book away. However, it is also an issue that I haven't played a character since the late 80s or early 90s.

PF2 expects the party to fight like a team. There are some rules of thumb you can develop over time (imposing flat-footed is good, take advantage of movement to force opponents to waste actions, etc). The big thing is talking to and coordinating with the other party members. However, yours is definitely a valid concern.

Yep that has me concerned. I have never had to worry about that before. I mean we did it, but it wasn't as important as it seems in PF2e.

PF2 provides a very solid framework for adjudicating improvised actions. I’ve had my players do some weird stuff (like trying to talking in a funny voice with a ghoul’s corpse to trick other ghouls in another room. Where it gets in your way is if you think you can get a bonus or benefit just by making a check. I’d argue that’s a problem in other games too, but it definitely steps on the toes of PF2’s niche protection.

My advice for other GMs is to look at the VP subsystem. It’s very easy to improvise a challenge to accomplish a goal, and it also gets everyone involved. One of my PCs wanted to convince the group’s expedition to follow her and move to a new location. I could have said she couldn’t do it because she didn’t have Group Impression and enough Diplomacy proficiency to convince that many people, but I ran it as an influence challenge instead.

I set the timeframe to before, during, and after dinner. That gave them three turns to make their case. During this time, some of them used Diplomacy to try to persuade them, but some of the other characters took other tacks. The fighter gave a combat demonstration. I think another one tried cooking something for the expedition (and failed). In the end, they succeeded, and it was a lot more fun than just a couple of Diplomacy checks (to Make an Impression and then a Request).

I will just have to see it in play, hopefully some day. However, I did a quick look through (many months ago now), and I don't remember anything like the 4e DMG 42 or the various tables in the 5e DMG for improvising actions, damage, etc. Maybe I just missed or I don't remember correctly.

Yeah, that sucks. It’s also disheartening to hear that FLGSes are dropping PF2 groups. Maybe things will get better as PF1 games wrap up. I don’t know. I’m lucky that my group was willing to switch, and we’ve been able to continue playing online.

It is hard to get a group to change when they are having so much fun doing what they are doing. I just like to try new things. Also, PF2e is very close to my vision of the ideal game design I had discussed on these boards a few years back, so I want to try it out for that reason too.

 

[kenada]

It is partially a presentation issue for me. I completely skipped 3e/PF1 because I didn't like the format. Just seeing all of those options, I kinda glaze over and push the book away. However, it is also an issue that I haven't played a character since the late 80s or early 90s.

Totally fair. PF2 is definitely in that vein.

I will just have to see it in play, hopefully some day. However, I did a quick look through (many months ago now), and I don't remember anything like the 4e DMG 42 or the various tables in the 5e DMG for improvising actions, damage, etc. Maybe I just missed or I don't remember correctly.

There’s nothing like page 42. The information is there, but it’s scattered among different topics.

• Improvised DCs are typically simple DCs, which don’t scale based on level. You pick a target proficiency then adjust by relative difficulty (e.g., an easy task for a master is a DC 28). All the stuff on DCs starts on page 503 of the CRB.
• Environmental damage is on page 513 of the CRB. There’s also some stuff on environmental effects and DC ranges on subsequent pages. Note that falling damage is just half the distance fallen in bludgeoning damage (max 750).
• For improvising a creature, I’d look at something similar and tweak that on the fly. Otherwise, you can use the “Building Creatures” section of the GMG to wing it.

 

[dave2008]

Totally fair. PF2 is definitely in that vein.

If I find a group when we get back to in person stuff, I will make it work. It is a barrier to play for me, but one I am will to break through.

There’s nothing like page 42. The information is there, but it’s scattered among different topics.

• Improvised DCs are typically simple DCs, which don’t scale based on level. You pick a target proficiency then adjust by relative difficulty (e.g., an easy task for a master is a DC 28). All the stuff on DCs starts on page 503 of the CRB.
• Environmental damage is on page 513 of the CRB. There’s also some stuff on environmental effects and DC ranges on subsequent pages. Note that falling damage is just half the distance fallen in bludgeoning damage (max 750).
• For improvising a creature, I’d look at something similar and tweak that on the fly. Otherwise, you can use the “Building Creatures” section of the GMG to wing it.

I will save this advice if I ever get the itch to DM PF2. Can the environmental effects be used for an improved creature damage? That is what I liked about the 4e and 5e tables.

 

[kenada]

I will save this advice if I ever get the itch to DM PF2. Can the environmental effects be used for an improved creature damage? That is what I liked about the 4e and 5e tables.

Not really. The damage ranges don’t line up very well with any of the creature strike damage guidelines. It’d be easier to just use the strike damage table (or the area damage table for AoE stuff) directly. Just pick something that makes sense for what you’re doing.

Edit: The “Building Creatures” section opens with a sidebar on improvising a creature. It’s probably too cumbersome to do with a physical book, but it’s not too bad using a PDF copy or AoN to look up the tables.

Improvising a Creature
As you get more experienced, you might find that you don’t need to build some creatures in advance. In many cases, especially for simple creatures, you can just select values from the relevant tables on the fly and track its HP. When you do, track which value you used as it came up. For instance, let’s say you’re improvising a 2nd-level kobold soldier. When it’s time for initiative, you decide it has moderate Perception and jot down “Per +8.” Your group’s fighter beats it at initiative and attacks. You decide the soldier has high AC—looking at Table 2–5, you see that’s 18—and add this information to your note. The fighter’s Strike hits, and you select the low end of high HP: 36. Well, now it’s 25. Your note says “Per +8, AC 18, HP 25.” If it gets to take a turn, you can give it a Strike then.

 

[!DWolf]

I disagree. First I must explain I didn't play 3e or PF1. I played 1e, then 4e, and now 5e. I decided to give PF2e a try. I purchased the CRB, Bestiary, and later the GMG. The number of pages doesn't bother me, but the idea of making a character with all of those feat choices does put me off, to the point I have stopped reading the class sections of the book. To further clarify, I am not into character building. When I don't DM (99% of the time), I want to play, not build, and I want to play casually. PF2e has me concerned on few accounts:

1. The shear number of options at character creation and each level has me a bit stressed. I don't want to make that many choices.
2. The shear number of choices during play has me a bit stressed. I don't want to let my group down. Everything I am reading about deadly fights and all the tactical choices that should be made have me concerned.
3. I like to play casually, with a lot of improv. I am not used to have a plethora of different rules and rule interactions I have to know. I don't know how this will go over with PF2e and PF2e players & DMs.
4. I can't play with people I know as none of them are willing to play PF2e. I have to go outside my gaming group and play with strangers. I haven't done that in 30 yrs. That has me a bit stressed too.

I don’t know if this will be helpful, but I primarily GM and so I would like to comment on these:

For point 1: I have actually had players like you (except a lot were brand new to TTRPGs in general). I have been running pathfinder 1e for a long time and since you haven’t played it I will state that it is nearly impossible for a new player to come and sit down and build a character in a reasonable amount of time. The feat list was so complex and riddled with trap options and dependencies that it was a nightmare to new players. To solve it, when a new player shows up (just to clarify that I play in a game store and allow walkins), I hand them a pregen I made that is both effective and simple to play. If that player then wants to continue long term and doesn’t want to mess with chargen, I have them create a concept - just a paragraph or two - and then create a character for them. As long as you can create a concept - a half-elf bastard who was press-ganged into the navy, “rescued” by pirates after his ship was sunk by a kraken and became a devoted follower of Besmara the goddess of sea monsters and pirates for instance - you can probably outsource your character creation as lots of people love to create characters. Or ask if you can use a (possibly reflavored) pregen.

For 2: for a player that had this problem (it was more decision paralysis in combat for him though - he was so afraid that his choice would be a wrong one he couldn’t act), I recommended listening to APs. Try to get a bunch of different groups and listen to a couple combats from each group. That gives you sort of a base line for combat and how different groups run it and the different sort of actions you can take. Just be careful because every group gets at least some of the rules wrong.

For 3: half my players are like that, both PF2E and PF1E and the one-shots for other systems I have run. I have even had a couple players play quite competently without once glancing at a rule book. As long as you have a good group/gm you only have to know how your character is unique - he can cause people to quake in their boots with his steely gaze and his fearsome presence can impact groups of people - and remind the gm of that when you are playing, the gm should be able to use their knowledge/improvisational abilities to adjudicate the situation.

For 4: I can sympathize. Finding/building a good group that wants to play what you want is tough even without Covid. I too play only in person and I think I am the last group still running at the store.

 

[!DWolf]

Beware: long stream of consciousness incoming.

I like the complexity of PF2E. I find it less complex, better balanced, and more accessible than PF1E while still maintaining a lot of its predecessor’s depth. DND 5e on the other hand falls into a bad spot for me: not deep enough for its complexity - when I want to play a simpler game, I have much more fun with a games like Dungeon World. I don’t think that following in 5e’s footsteps is the right approach and I probably would have stuck to 1e had they done so. If I wanted a 5e like experience I would have played 5e. Businesswise copying the market leader is not a recipe for success. Consider the video game industry: you had a couple of good mmorpgs and a lot that failed, same thing with mobas, looter-shooters, battle royal games, and open world sandboxes. If you want innovation and growth - following the market trend will not get you there. By going its own way from dnd, I think Paizo is better positioned than if it tried to cut off a slice of 5e pie (if that analogy makes any sense at all). To put it another way: DND 5e but better is not necessarily better than not DND 5e.

Mechanically, I appreciate the fact that it has all the complicated subsystems built into the core rules (I count the gmg here). It is always easier to reduce complexity/detail than to add it, so by including the complexity by default, but in a modular way that lets play groups reduce the complexity they don’t need, I think Paizo made the right choice. Example: handwaving healing when you have no pressure or danger is easy, building and integrating a healing system that gives choices in high pressure situations is very hard. Note that by including the complexity they did: it enables more old school style play like I prefer to exist comfortably by new style play, making a big tent (and thus market).

The above actually leads to one of my big gripes - the core rules recall knowledge checks on monsters. They didn’t make it complex enough. Thus each group has to sort of build their own system for what to tell the players and they are all different, with no consistency.

I think Paizo also did a very clever thing with the design of PF2E that no one is talking about: they built an extensible framework that they can use to build further adventure paths. If you read the previous editions adventure paths you can tell that some of them (jade regent, kingmaker, parts of most others) suffered without it. Sure they were good - but Paizo was clearly bolting in parts to the system to try and get what they wanted out of it - which I think is ultimately one of the factors that lead to the mess that 1st edition became. So some of the design of 2e is to provide modular points for further APs so that they can more easily integrate things like circuses and watchmen and magical academies. If Paizo is up to the task of using them I don’t know (I haven’t read agents or extinction), but they are there. And if Paizo can’t home-brewers certainly can.

Regarding the adventure paths. Playing robotically to produce an “authentic experience” is not the way they are meant to be played. Any tabletop rpg adventure will be influenced by the group they are in and there is no one true ideal way to play that you should strive for. The best experience you will get out of an adventure path is when you (plural - I’m talking about both players and gms here) make it your own. Thus paradoxically the “authentic experience” is only achieved by not seeking an “authentic experience.”

 

[dave2008]

I don’t think that following in 5e’s footsteps is the right approach...

If that is what you have taken from CapnZ's discussion, you have really missed the point.

 

[!DWolf]

If that is what you have taken from CapnZ's discussion, you have really missed the point.

Note: Still a bit ranty (sorry).

I think you missed my point:

DND 5e is like a building that has been stripped down to the essential structure. Almost everything is gone: furniture, carpets, interior walls, etc. but the structure is still intact and when a play group moves in they can install whatever they want. That is why there is a ton of DND 5e homebrew.

Pathfinder 2e took the opposite approach: extras have been added and the building is stuffed with things that people might want, but not all do. When the play group moves in they either ignore the things they don’t need, remove them (through hand-waiving or homebrewing), or complain about them endlessly online not realizing that other people interested in the product do want them.

Now suppose pathfinder had ‘learned from DND 5e’s Success’ (paraphrased) and instead stripped out almost everything that was non-essential until, like DND 5e, it was a skeleton of a structure waiting to be filled. Good right? But then you have a skeletal structure competing with a skeletal structure. And that is not a fight Paizo can win. Which is why I think it was smart to go the opposite route.

This analogy also explains the different material release rates and online copyright policies between the two games. 5e sold you the building skeleton - the stuff inside isn’t really their product. PF2e gave you the building and asked you nicely to pay if you think the stuff inside is valuable (but you don’t have to) and by putting more stuff inside they are betting they can make the product valuable enough that you will want to pay. It is a completely different business model.

 

[kenada]

DND 5e is like a building that has been stripped down to the essential structure. Almost everything is gone: furniture, carpets, interior walls, etc. but the structure is still intact and when a play group moves in they can install whatever they want. That is why there is a ton of DND 5e homebrew.

I like this analogy. That’s probably also why there are a bunch of games that use 5e as a basis. Of course, that raises the question of why not build PF2 on top of 5e while still offering the kitchen sink.

Reflecting on that, I think that might actually be the more risky move. If PF2 were built on 5e, then it’d risk attracting an audience that just wants to cannibalize it for their 5e games. Maybe they buy the first few books, but they’re probably not reliable customers long term. However, if PF2 is its own thing, then people who play it have to buy from you. Sure, there are (might be?) 3PP, but you’re the primary source for new material. And this doesn’t even consider the customers you alienated during the switch (for basing it on 5e, breaking compatibility, etc).