Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[CapnZapp]

I don’t want to start another digression about the volume of feats, so I’ll just add I think they should have been called different things. If the feats were valued equivalently, and I could MacGyver a class out of e.g., ancestry feats and skill feats, that would almost be okay, but that’s not possible (AFAIK) without its being worse than the others feat-for-feat.

I'm saying they have taken the granularization (is that a word?) of abilities to ridiculous extremes. It's not about the number of feats per se. I'm getting the distinct impression the desire to exploit every little nook and cranny of design space has careened out of control completely.

Noone asked for obscenely specific and conditional feats and items like there are loads and loads of in PF2. In fact, I thought the fate of 4E pretty conclusively indicated the market's appetite for that level of granularity....

 

[BryonD]

My point is that I don't cut Paizo nearly the same slack here. After all Paizo could have learned from 5E, but didn't. I refuse to let Paizo get away with "their game is a massive improvement over PF1". Only if you live in a Paizo bubble does that fly. Most prospective PF2 customers, however, will have come across 5E.

In the year PF2 was released (2019) 5E was and is the obvious comparison point, not 3E/PF1 (and certainly not 4E).

Works for me

 

[Campbell]

My point is that I don't cut Paizo nearly the same slack here. After all Paizo could have learned from 5E, but didn't. I refuse to let Paizo get away with "their game is a massive improvement over PF1". Only if you live in a Paizo bubble does that fly. Most prospective PF2 customers, however, will have come across 5E.

In the year PF2 was released (2019) 5E was and is the obvious comparison point, not 3E/PF1 (and certainly not 4E).

You keep saying that as if it were obvious what the lessons learned from 5e should be. It certainly is not obvious to me.

From my perspective it does the hobby demonstrable good for the main alternative to 5e to be demonstrably different from it. I believe there is already way too much homogeneity in the hobby as it stands.

Personally, 5e leaves me somewhat cold. The playstyle engendered by the system is not something I find compelling. Lots of people do and I do not begrudge them that. It's not about complexity from my perspective either. I like games like Electric Bastionland that are way simpler than 5e. It's the lack of meaningful rules interactions, lack of lasting fallback, lack of noncombat mechanics and overall deemphasis of skilled play of the fiction that makes it not very enjoyable to me. It does not really feel like a game to me.

If that's what you mean by the lessons of 5e I'll pass.

 

[glass]

Things like force affects affect everything except when you use magic missile that only affects living creatures? The game is full of stuff like that. Fey abilities used to be all charm and compulsion spells but now it's just compulsion spells which have be nuetered. You probably not sure because you haven't paid attention to the training wheels that are everywhere. GM'ing pathfinder is like bowling with the kiddie rails up.

I am not sure, because frankly your post is rather hard to follow, but you seem to be insulting me. Is that in fact your intention? And either way, could you clarify?

My point is that I don't cut Paizo nearly the same slack here. After all Paizo could have learned from 5E, but didn't. I refuse to let Paizo get away with "their game is a massive improvement over PF1". Only if you live in a Paizo bubble does that fly. Most prospective PF2 customers, however, will have come across 5E.

In the year PF2 was released (2019) 5E was and is the obvious comparison point, not 3E/PF1 (and certainly not 4E).

You keep saying that as if it were obvious what the lessons learned from 5e should be. It certainly is not obvious to me.

Me either. With the caveat that I have not played either extensively (and not run 5e at all), I consider PF2 to be the superior game. Not perfect by any means, but pretty damn good.

_
glass.

 

[kenada]

Well, at the risk of becoming tiresome I feel I still need to quibble.

You have the presentation layer.
You have the actual motions players go through to "execute" the rules
You have the end results (what comes out of the box, whether it's black or not.)

I'm arguing that step 2 is far too fussy, involves far too many decision points, calculations and die rolls.

So I'm not merely trying to say that the words make it seem much more complex than it really is. I'm saying it really is much more complex than it needed to be.

You can achieve roughly the same results with far less mechanics (which in turn means you can achieve them with far less words). No beginner box can explain Crafting or Medicine (to take two examples) in a streamlined way unless the actual CRB rules (step 2) are ignored/simplified.

This aspect alone lowers my grade of any given rpg subsystem. Whether the rules are fun, give good results, and so on, doesn't even come into this equation.

Do you have an example of what you mean? You mention Crafting, but I consider that an example of a fairly simple mechanic that’s presented in a way that’s needlessly complicated and confusing.

Compare this to this:

Craft [Downtime, Manipulate]​

Requirements The item you want to craft is your level or lower (treat items with no level as level 0). You must have master proficiency to craft items of 9th level or higher, and you must have legendary proficiency to craft items of 16th level or higher. You have the formula for the item. You have an appropriate set of tools and (in many cases) a workshop. You have the appropriate feat to create alchemical items, magic items, and snares.

You make an item from raw materials. Pay half the cost of the item in materials and spend 4 days working on the item. You can buy most materials you need in a settlement, but the GM may determine that some materials are not readily available (e.g., due to rarity). After the work period has passed, make a Crafting check against a DC determined by the GM.

Success Your attempt is successful. You expend the materials you supplied. Pay the remainder of the cost in materials, and the item is yours.
Failure You fail to complete the item. You can salvage the raw materials you supplied for their full value. If you want to try again, you must start over.
Critical Failure You fail to complete the item. You ruin 10% of the raw materials you supplied, but you can salvage the rest. If you want to try again, you must start over.

Special You can Earn Income using Crafting as a task at your level to pay for some or all of the remaining materials. If your initial crafting check was a critical success, you may instead Earn Income as a task at your level + 1. When you Earn Income this way, you make a check daily at the task level determined by your initial crafting check.

Yeah, it still has a lot of words. However, the original version mixes outcomes and requirements and procedural elements together. That makes it look complicated and confusing. PF2 has a standard format for these things (requirements, flavor, procedure, outcomes, special notes), but Crafting eschews that format — to its detriment. The original version uses “if” five times in the procedural part of the activity while mine uses it none (or one time if we count the special section for that purpose).

Is that complicated? I don’t think so. Ultimately, it comes down to paying a cost and making a check. The requirements are wordy. If some things could be taken safely as assumptions (like the level 0 thing), then they probably be omitted. I almost deferred to the Crafting Requirements section on page 535, but I wasn’t sure how fair that would be. However, I think it still reads more clearly than the original version even as-is.

 

[kenada]

I'm saying they have taken the granularization (is that a word?) of abilities to ridiculous extremes. It's not about the number of feats per se. I'm getting the distinct impression the desire to exploit every little nook and cranny of design space has careened out of control completely.

Noone asked for obscenely specific and conditional feats and items like there are loads and loads of in PF2. In fact, I thought the fate of 4E pretty conclusively indicated the market's appetite for that level of granularity....

If they’re going to do customization, I’d rather there be standardized customization points instead of the ad hoc approach they used in PF1. It’s helpful for homebrew, and it sets an expectation that those things will be supported across supplements. I don’t think not having customization or doing only “big” customization was an option since customization is one of the differentiating elements of PF2.

Edit: I should add that providing customization that lets PCs specialize to the point it creates a power disparity is not great either. It’s bad for the system because it would break everything they’re trying to make the math actually work. It’s bad for the social aspect because players of different mastery levels can’t really play in the game. 5e gets away with it because it’s so large that systemic issues like that aren’t a limiter.

I’ve been poking around the 5e Level Up forums here. The discussions about various interactions, the goofy multiclass combinations, and the the optimization nonsense are so off-putting. I don’t miss that at all in PF2. I like that I can do a thing or allow a thing, and it probably won’t break my game just because I’m haven’t yet gained legendary proficiency in system mastery.

 

[nevin]

I am not sure, because frankly your post is rather hard to follow, but you seem to be insulting me. Is that in fact your intention? And either way, could you clarify?


Me either. With the caveat that I have not played either extensively (and not run 5e at all), I consider PF2 to be the superior game. Not perfect by any means, but pretty damn good.

_
glass.

i wasn't trying to insult you I was pointing out that the game is full of arbitrary one off rules that aren't part of a holistic whole. Pathfinder is all about preventing roleplaying from getting in the way of the tactical combat game. I apologize if my post came across that way. You can't just read the rules and play the game, you have to read everything that affects your character, because there are unexplained ,limitations everywhere in the game, that have no logical game narrative. They just exist because someone wanted to stop somethin from happening and didn't trust DM's to handle it. Some games have a lot of limitations but create a narrative of why such things are there. Pathfinder just throws in random limitations everywhere. That's part of what causes people to complain about the complexity. All that arbitrary stuff means you can't just understand how the system works and go, you have to understand how all the individual nuts and bolts that apply to your character work.

If pathfinder were a car you'd have an app to approve opening the gas tank so you could add gas. But only the amount of gas you put in the App first, just to make sure you don't spend more money than you should. Or your brakes would only work if you were looking straight ahead , and glancing to the passenger wouldn't be considered straight ahead. Then when you have wreck because the brakes didn't engage the Pathfinder forums would tell you to drive as intended.

 

[glass]

i wasn't trying to insult you I was pointing out that the game is full of arbitrary one off rules that aren't part of a holistic whole. Pathfinder is all about preventing roleplaying from getting in the way of the tactical combat game. I apologize if my post came across that way. You can't just read the rules and play the game, you have to read everything that affects your character, because there are unexplained ,limitations everywhere in the game, that have no logical game narrative. They just exist because someone wanted to stop somethin from happening and didn't trust DM's to handle it. Some games have a lot of limitations but create a narrative of why such things are there. Pathfinder just throws in random limitations everywhere. That's part of what causes people to complain about the complexity. All that arbitrary stuff means you can't just understand how the system works and go, you have to understand how all the individual nuts and bolts that apply to your character work.

If pathfinder were a car you'd have an app to approve opening the gas tank so you could add gas. But only the amount of gas you put in the App first, just to make sure you don't spend more money than you should. Or your brakes would only work if you were looking straight ahead , and glancing to the passenger wouldn't be considered straight ahead. Then when you have wreck because the brakes didn't engage the Pathfinder forums would tell you to drive as intended.

I am not sure whether you description is supposed to apply to PF1 or PF2, because it really does not resemble either IME. I am also baffled as to what made you think "arbitrary one off rules that aren't part of a holistic whole" is something I would be in favour of. If anything, I was calling for the opposite.

_
glass.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, it still has a lot of words.

Yes, you have reorganized the existing rules in a more logical and easy to follow order. Unfortunately, that's not enough IMHO.

First off, unless I'm absolutely lost, you still refer to the Earn Income activity in that rule. That's a huge table and associated text.

And it is still just as sensitive to parameters you simply have no control over. Quoting myself:

The RAW rules are incredibly cluttery and byzantine in that the benefit depends on so many factors outside the player's control, and if I (the GM) run an official campaign, even partially outside my control as well!

There's just so many questions: will we always have a settlement of our level available? how much downtime will there be? what sort of formulas will I find? how much of the loot will be in cash (either in gold or in vendor loot)?

Formulas are a half-assed addition in my view. At least in Extinction Curse, there are only a few loot piles that contain formulas, far fewer than what a crafter can expect to need and want. Other than that, the GM is left on his or her own.

Finally, we have still not answered or justified why the rules are so detailed in the first place.
Compare to my lazy-ass attempt at true simplification:

Crafting. This skill lets you make Earn Income tasks at your own level, regardless of the settlement's nature. You can spend these savings on crafting items, and once you've reached half the purchase price of the item, you can spend the other half of the purchase price in gold, and have your item.​

The end.

 

[CapnZapp]

If they’re going to do customization, I’d rather there be standardized customization points instead of the ad hoc approach they used in PF1.

There's a big point I have as-of yet not brought myself to add to the discussion. (The original one - is Pathfinder complex?) Just thinking about it is exhausting.

But there are loads of feats with slightly different requirements and mechanics. Just look at Twin Takedown and Double Slice. (Part of why I've dreaded to make this argument is that it is such a rabbit hole to go down into, to find more examples of inconsistences and non-standardized rules concepts)

The mere notion somebody (not you) could be calling PF2 simple or less complex than 3E or PF1 or 4E is mindboggling.

PF2 is insanely complex.