Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[kenada]

I always get the feeling 3.5; PF1 and PF2 are games where the creators don't trust Dms to be fair and fun and see to limit in gm freedom. Like the all had anti group gms that made Tomb of Horror dungeons all the time and played against the table then with them seeing TPKs as their win condign. Like all had grown from it is Gm VS player mentality and to give players tools to keep their DMs in check

As I understand it, 3e was designed to empower players by creating rules that was serve as constraints on the GM. That carried forward into PF1. PF2 walks that back in some ways and doubles down in others.

When I say it walks that back, I mean it in many places, it says explicitly to ask your GM or that something is determined by the GM. DCs are almost entirely up to GM fiat now. The GMG also adds subsystems where the GM can take things completely outside of the usual action economy. You can see some of what that looks like in the exploration thread here with the raid system @!DWolf posted.

The place where it feels like it doubled down is skill actions and skill feats. I think they went too far enumerating so many things. They could have provided a generic approach to skill checks that would have covered most of the bases, and it wouldn’t have created this confusion about whether or how a GM can allow PCs to do anything outside of the box.

Skill feats are more pernicious. I think the idea of non-combat customization is a good one, but they need to provide more guidance on how that interacts with ad hoc skill checks and adjudication. We can make inferences, but being explicit would be better. With that said, they generally seem to let you do things you couldn’t do otherwise (e.g., do something without a check, which doesn’t mean that doing something with a check somehow invalidates that feat choice).

 

[FrozenNorth]

Like, if I have a strength fighter who is a sailor and I have a strength fighter who is just a knight, both are likely to have athletics and high strength. Seems natural, right? So how do I differentiate the sailor as someone who climbs better because he spends time in the rigging of the ship more?

For what it’s worth, I like the gradation between Untrained, Trained, Expert and Master and to me, this is a better way to create the gradation you’ve described than skill feats.

 

[Thomas Shey]

See, this is all pretty bizarre to me; I've looked at the Skill Feats and the vast majority of them are either things that offset a penalty under some circumstances (that, presumably for a given character, may come up enough to warrant the expenditure), or allow you to do things that seem like they should have some sort of character resource cost (getting to sub in a different skill for certain actions than it normally has). So the idea that feats prevent improvisation seems alien as hell to me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

For what it’s worth, I like the gradation between Untrained, Trained, Expert and Master and to me, this is a better way to create the gradation you’ve described than skill feats.

I love the skill gradations, but my point was that if the knight and the sailor both have the same skill gradations, they'd functionally have no difference. A feat like Combat Climber is good at creating a small bit of specialization.

Theoretically you could create skill feats that give you bonuses to certain skill checks and then expand what skills can do (with appropriate penalties), but I think getting away from straight skill number bonuses was a good decision for both Paizo and WOTC.

See, this is all pretty bizarre to me; I've looked at the Skill Feats and the vast majority of them are either things that offset a penalty under some circumstances (that, presumably for a given character, may come up enough to warrant the expenditure), or allow you to do things that seem like they should have some sort of character resource cost (getting to sub in a different skill for certain actions than it normally has). So the idea that feats prevent improvisation seems alien as hell to me.

Yeah, seriously. It's not taking away tools from people, but giving people new tools to use.

 

[Lefi2017]

I used to think that, but I've found out over the years that having visible structure for things can be a real help to new players: when you say "You can do anything", people just sort of freeze up with all their options. It also helps to have a good idea of what something will do rather than bargaining with the GM to it: instead of trying to hash out what could happen, you can just do it and have a good idea of what the result will be. I understand the aversion to it and depending on the game I can fall on either side.

That is called choice paralysis I think they just look both gm and players more in like that so instead of choosing in game what to do they do so when choosing from hundreds of feats to know what they are even able to do so it creates the same problem of overwhelming choice new player with way more ways to miss step and memorize

I just believe this makes the hard job of the DM/GM even harder that is the last thing needed. SO would you say GM empowered games are easier to run or games liker 3.5 PF1 and PF2? I think they just promote rules layering and player munchinisem

 

[Justice and Rule]

That is called choice paralysis I think they just look both gm and players more in like that so instead of choosing in game what to do they do so when choosing from hundreds of feats to know what they are even able to do so it creates the same problem of overwhelming choice new player with way more ways to miss step and memorize

I just believe this makes the hard job of the DM/GM even harder that is the last thing needed. SO would you say GM empowered games are easier to run or games liker 3.5 PF1 and PF2? I think they just promote rules layering and player munchinisem

I mean, I disagree. The whole "hundreds of feats" thing is overblown because at any given time, you are not looking at 99% of them. Your class, ancestry, and level act as hard limits on what you need to look at, since they all limit your selection. And your character concept will soft-limit it, because if you aren't making a character based around intimidation, you don't need to look at those feats. Really, at any given time, you are probably looking at a choice between a dozen different options.

And I think the problem here is that you think you don't have to memorize more in GM-focused games, but you really do: the difference is that one instance is front-loaded, while the other is not. In a Player-empowered game, I have to memorize the system that was set out in the rules, and in a GM-empowered game, you have to remember what the GM decided previously. You will be memorizing more rules one way or another, it's just a matter of when you decide to memorize them. I'm fine with either, though I find the former to be nicer on the players than the latter because the players can know their options ahead of time rather than having to look to me to tell them what they can and can't do. There's rules layering either way, what is different is when you layer them.

To relate a story, one of my early problems in 5E was getting my players to use their skills because they didn't really know what they did: there's not really clear ideas as to what you can do with each one, especially when you have overlaps like Investigation/Perception, Nature/Survival, and Performance/Instrument Tool proficiency. Some of them are obvious (Stealth, Sleight of Hand, Deception, Persuasion) and some of them feel really limited (History, which I ended up using closer to PF2's Society skill). After a while I ended up copying down 4E skill descriptions and skill actions to give the players an idea of what they can do with them, and this helped them a lot. In PF2, it gives you specific actions which you can use, which both helps you understand what the skill can do and gives you an idea of how to use the skill beyond what they have written down.

Another example would be crafting: 5E has tool proficiencies, like Herbalism. I had a player who wanted to make potions, but there's just nothing written down in the books on it. So I set out trying to give him some basic guidance, and he's looking up what other people did. And that's fine in certain respects, but it also creates more work for me, as well as having to double check and game out in my head these systems that other people have created that he was bringing to me. Meanwhile PF2 has that already in-built, and while I have problems with it I can also fix them as I see fit I can make small changes and not have to create it out of whole cloth.

And none of this means I dislike 5E: I wouldn't play it if I didn't like it. But in playing it I've found that I desire something that is a bit more structured so that I'm not constantly having to create precedents and systems on the fly instead. PF2 provides that.

Also not sure that more rules make for more munchkining; to me, that's more of a balancing thing than anything. PF2 seems reasonably well-balanced on the whole, though admittedly I have less experience with it than other systems that I've played.

 

[dave2008]

I mean, I disagree. The whole "hundreds of feats" thing is overblown because at any given time, you are not looking at 99% of them.

Except of course some people think any feats are to many feats! Broad generalizations are not very helpful either way IMO.

 

[JmanTheDM]

Capn..

I completely understand the theoretical idea "okay so nobody takes this or that feat, what's the problem?"

The problem is where do you draw the line. Which feats are irrelevant, or phrased differently: open to "GM generosity"?

Per the rules, as soon as you take even 1 point of damage from a fall, you land prone. Unless you have a feat. Do you allow corner cases, and if so, how can you justify taking those feats?

...[snip]...

I admire your confidence in steadfastly defending your view on "The One True Way To Play Pathfinder 2E"... but I assure you, there are other options. When I read your litany of examples, my immediate gut instinct is "You're interpreting things exactly opposite".

Now, don't get me wrong. You do you! that's the beauty of the game. there is, in fact "No One True Way to Play Pathfinder 2E". Also, this is not intended as a criticism, but I would have fired you as my GM, or booted you out as a player in my game. Because you doing you, and me doing me are in direct opposition to each other. THIS IS HEALTHY! and again, I'm making NO judgement on you as a person. I can tell you are super passionate, really smart and creative, and likely a great person which are all awesome qualities. we just game different.

all that is to say, I hear you, I understand where you are coming from, and yet, everything you are saying is anathema to the style of game that I play, run, and which my players enjoy. Again, I'm doing me. I have also lost many players throughout the years because me doing me is not conducive to their fun. I used to take it hard, now, I realize we all have limited time to enjoy our hobbies and why spend time with people or groups that just don't jive. they fired me as a GM. THIS IS HEALTHY! and it continues to reinforce that games can be run differently.

Perhaps I'm lucky to have a large pool of players to pick from, and those players are VERY open about playing and trying and experimenting with different systems. [shrug]

now, with that said, I think one fundamental difference here is how feats are perceived.
to you, if I may paraphrase, they act as a kind of leash. you may only interact within the limits that the leash. Thus, 2,000 feats becomes a living embodiment of the scene in the original Robocop movie (ok, now I'm aging myself), when Murphy has so many contradictory directives that he doesn't know how to proceed and thus does nothing.
to me (and I suspect others), feats are a kind of mechanical prompt. Not intended to restrict the player from interacting within the world, but to help inform and create. in my interpretation, you can try it, but with a feat, you will likely do it better than someone without it. Reading it like this does not break the game at all.

Remember watching television shows or reading comics, and one week a problem is solved by mixing dilithium with anti-matter, and the next week the Problem Of The Week could have also been solved the same way, but wasn't? - WHY DIDN'T THEY REMEMBER? stupid show!

Feats - or the lack thereof - are in a way similar to that. without them, you can attempt to mix dilithium with anti-matter - provided you remember. you are likely not very good (or not as good) at it as you need to rely on your basic skills etc. with the feat, you know as a player, and I know as GM, that mixing dilithium with anti-matter is IMPORTANT TO YOU. now, there is a mechanical benefit to this as well - which is important but not all encompassing. your example of the cloud jumper feat is extremely illustrative of this. in your view of feats, having a cloud jump feat results in 1 of 2 states. either a) the PC can do this and the monster cannot - thus the competition is moot or b) both monster and PC have the feat and thus can engage in this contest.

I give you 2 different interpretations of this same scenario.
in scenario jman-1, the PC has the feat and the monster does not. the PC KICKS THE A## of the monster making everyone around realize just how awesome the PC is. the rest of the NPC's are in awe, they tremble at a person who can literally walk on clouds. Bonus to Intimidation or Diplomacy. Never make a deal with a dragon and never engage a Monk in a long jump contest... or,
in scenario jman-2, as GM, I think it would be awesome for this contest to happen, so the opponent GETS THE CLOUD WALKER feat. contest happens, and depending on what the results are - the GM continues play...

Like I said. that's me being me. I know my 2 examples are in direct opposition to the way you run and play your game. THIS IS HEALTHY. it works for me and my players, it doesn't break anything. I don't get arguments about "but this feat on pg x. covers this case... so what else should I never select". I also know that you will have multiple well reasoned and logical edge cases that'll refute everything I said above. Bottom line, they don't matter - until they matter - and I'm confident in my own GM'ing skills and in my players that we will deal with it on the fly.

But I implore you, please stop trying to convince everyone that the game is broken simply because it doesn't work the way you want it to work! me and my players are having enormous fun playing this game "wrong"

Cheers,

J.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I disagree. The whole "hundreds of feats" thing is overblown because at any given time, you are not looking at 99% of them. Your class, ancestry, and level act as hard limits on what you need to look at, since they all limit your selection. And your character concept will soft-limit it, because if you aren't making a character based around intimidation, you don't need to look at those feats. Really, at any given time, you are probably looking at a choice between a dozen different options.

Yeah. First off, the "class feats" are really just selectable class features; same for ancestry feats as you say (and you don't get that many of those). The truth is, the only common feats most people need to look at outside their class are general and skill feats, and even the latter you can pretty much ignore any skill you aren't trained in. Probably the character type (barring hybrids) that need to pay attention to the largest number are normally rogues (because they get potentially so many skills more of the skill feats are actually relevant to them.

And I think the problem here is that you think you don't have to memorize more in GM-focused games, but you really do: the difference is that one instance is front-loaded, while the other is not. In a Player-empowered game, I have to memorize the system that was set out in the rules, and in a GM-empowered game, you have to remember what the GM decided previously. You will be memorizing more rules one way or another, it's just a matter of when you decide to memorize them. I'm fine with either, though I find the former to be nicer on the players than the latter because the players can know their options ahead of time rather than having to look to me to tell them what they can and can't do. There's rules layering either way, what is different is when you layer them.

I will also note, as I do any time this comes up that there's no assurance that the GM will remember what he did the last time something came up, especially if its a fringe case. So even if you remember, it may be a different (possibly entirely different in minimalist systems) thing. A game with written rules can be inconsistent (in that similar seeming things are mechanicked differently than you'd expect looking at them), but you generally at least have a reference.

Also not sure that more rules make for more munchkining; to me, that's more of a balancing thing than anything. PF2 seems reasonably well-balanced on the whole, though admittedly I have less experience with it than other systems that I've played.

There are always going to be corner cases someone can take advantage of in a rules set, and the more rules there are, the more opportunity. But barring really ludicrous interpretations, PF2e has been pretty conservative about things you can really cook the books with. Which doesn't mean there aren't winners and losers in character design (its hard to avoid that completely in any game where character building actually matters at all), but they tend to stay within a relatively tight range.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Except of course some people think any feats are to many feats! Broad generalizations are not very helpful either way IMO.

If people hate having mechanically meaningful character options, there's not much useful to say to them if you don't agree.