Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2

[dave2008]

The "disregarding hints" part is what I was referring to.

I wouldn't consider that "work," but to each his or her own.

It depends. Is he compressed too?

(This was an issue people sometimes don't get about really old school D&D; while you didn't want to do the equivalent of the old-red-dragon-versus-first-levellers thing I mentioned (because it was entirely possible if they didn't see that coming for everyone to be in a breath weapon and therefor dead right in the first round, and even if they didn't it was unlikely there was much they could do unless they ran immediately and the dragon didn't decide to pursue), the gap between higher level monsters and lower level PCs was not as profound as it was by at least the D&D3 era.

No the dragon wasn't compressed, quite the opposite actually. I made my 4e monsters more dangerous (I posted some 4e gods here when the WotC forums went down and you can see what I mean). For example:

MM ancient black dragon breath weapon: 24 (4d8 + 6) acid + 15 acid ongoing & -4 to AC.
My version: 36 (4d8 + 18) acid + 15 acid ongoing & -4 to AC.

It doesn't seem like much of a difference, but it is at the level they faced it.

 

[Retreater]

That's your business. My point was that there are reasons to believe that the first two APs suffered from exactly the same problems the earliest 3e and 4e D&D adventures did, and that none of the three did to the same degree later. So I consider drawing much conclusion from those two APs extremely dubious. If the same problem is still occurring in the most recent two, that's a useful data point; the other isn't.

I think that Paizo's AP formula will hurt them in regards to adventure development. A few bad 32 page single adventures is not as damaging as a bad AP, which requires significant resources from the company to produce (and groups to play). Also, you can't try out as many concepts, and if you happen to produce one with a theme that doesn't hook certain players (for example, a circus theme, playing cops theme), then you've shut out potential players for 6 months or more.
I haven't heard of a "killer app" from PF2 yet. I'm excited about their upcoming dungeon AP, and I hope that might get us back on track.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's your business. My point was that there are reasons to believe that the first two APs suffered from exactly the same problems the earliest 3e and 4e D&D adventures did, and that none of the three did to the same degree later. So I consider drawing much conclusion from those two APs extremely dubious. If the same problem is still occurring in the most recent two, that's a useful data point; the other isn't.

I don't remember "this is too hard" from 3e, but that could just be me, well, not remembering.

What I'm talking about is something else: that anytime you follow the guidelines in the CRB you end up with really sharp difficulty (at the early levels). My point is to compare to the obvious yardstock - i.e. 5th edition.

The fact you're about to have a nasty shock if you approach PF2 naively, the way that serves you decently in 5E (life in D&D is always rough at first, especially compared to later, so I'm talking about something "extra spicy"), might well be due to writer errors, but then we're talking about CRB writers and not the AoA writers or the EC writers or the AoE writers... It's inherent to the game, the damage spikes I mean, and what makes it more exciting and engaging than 4E say, but combined with guidelines that treat you like a "level N character facing level N challenges" even at level 1, writers that actually implement those guidelines, and just the teensiest bit of bad luck you end up having an absolutely brutal experience.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think that Paizo's AP formula will hurt them in regards to adventure development.

I think this sentiment might have sounded reasonable say 10, 11 years ago.

Now it's completely obvious it is the AP formula that is the basis for Paizo's success. If it hurts their development, they clearly don't need that development.

 

[Retreater]

I think this sentiment might have sounded reasonable say 10, 11 years ago.

Now it's completely obvious it is the AP formula that is the basis for Paizo's success. If it hurts their development, they clearly don't need that development.

I can buy that. Then the AP format is actively working against promoting and developing a new edition of Pathfinder.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think that Paizo's AP formula will hurt them in regards to adventure development. A few bad 32 page single adventures is not as damaging as a bad AP, which requires significant resources from the company to produce (and groups to play). Also, you can't try out as many concepts, and if you happen to produce one with a theme that doesn't hook certain players (for example, a circus theme, playing cops theme), then you've shut out potential players for 6 months or more.
I haven't heard of a "killer app" from PF2 yet. I'm excited about their upcoming dungeon AP, and I hope that might get us back on track.

Entirely possible. Of course the "you can play through this whole one sequence and it pretty much makes a campaign" has been a big part of their business model, and has generally done well by them, so its a necessary price, arguably.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't remember "this is too hard" from 3e, but that could just be me, well, not remembering.

It wasn't a case that they were too hard; it was a case they just didn't produce the result they were trying to produce because the author's heads were apparently still in AD&D2 mode (a problem even some of the designers later referenced). That's the comparison I'm talking about; D&D adventure writers who are, essentially, writing for the last edition. This produces somewhat different problems each time, but still problems.

What I'm talking about is something else: that anytime you follow the guidelines in the CRB you end up with really sharp difficulty (at the early levels). My point is to compare to the obvious yardstock - i.e. 5th edition.

Then at that point you have be claiming that the successor adventures were not using those guidelines and the earlier ones were, since the complaints about the difficulty in the first two APs have not been notably repeated in the later ones. Is that, effectively, your claim?

 

[CapnZapp]

I can buy that. Then the AP format is actively working against promoting and developing a new edition of Pathfinder.

Please don't confuse "I don't like it" for "it's giving Paizo problems".

Their AP format likely isn't a problem at all. In fact, it has been, and I suspect it continues to be, a solution, in that it has drawn gamers to Paizo especially in the 4E era where WotC adventure writing were at its nadir.

 

[CapnZapp]

It wasn't a case that they were too hard; it was a case they just didn't produce the result they were trying to produce because the author's heads were apparently still in AD&D2 mode (a problem even some of the designers later referenced). That's the comparison I'm talking about; D&D adventure writers who are, essentially, writing for the last edition. This produces somewhat different problems each time, but still problems.

This is just speculation.

You're basically saying there were problems before so there must be problems now, even though the problems might not be the same.

That's just not stringent enough for me. I am having a serious analysis of Pathfinder 2, you're just shooting from the hip.

Then at that point you have be claiming that the successor adventures were not using those guidelines and the earlier ones were, since the complaints about the difficulty in the first two APs have not been notably repeated in the later ones. Is that, effectively, your claim?

What are you talking about? The Agents of Edgewood adventure path is written for law enforcement heroes and so it tries much harder to provide non-combat solutions. But if and when the heroes do choose combat, that combat is just as unrelentingly hard as before because the encounters are consistent with the guidelines just like before. The kobolds, the owlbear, the ankhrav...

I'm telling you that what the encounter guidelines list as reasonable (and what every single last one of Paizo PF2 modules employ) - a "moderate" encounter - can easily be a harrowing and deadly encounter. At level 1.

This is what I'm discussing. Your involvement led me to believe I had found someone to partner up with in investigating this. But it has become obvious to me you're not that person. I don't get the impression you're interested, as you're neither acknowledging or contesting these specifics.

You just want to discuss this from some overall abstract high perch, no specific system knowledge needed. But I'm not here to discuss generic "wisdom" like "there's bound to be teething issues".

Of course there is, but what are they exactly, and what is the specific cause?

At this stage consider that a rhetorical question, not an invite.

 

[Thomas Shey]

This is just speculation.

Extrapolation. Its been a problem that has been observed in edition changeover in the D&D sphere twice running, then dropping away, and the same pattern seems present in the PF2e APs. You're not required to find it compelling, but it seems at least as good an explanation as the one you're suggesting.

You're basically saying there were problems before so there must be problems now, even though the problems might not be the same.

Given the cause of the problems previously is not exactly a state secret, suggesting its a common pattern and could be a cause now does not seem exactly a massive reach, since in each case we're talking editions of a game where the game play changed in some serious ways while still showing a continuity of system. This has been true in the transition from AD&D2 to D&D3e, D&D3e to D&D4e, and PF1e to PF2e to a degree that is rarely the case in game edition changeovers (and when it is is often on games that don't do much adventure support anyway).

That's just not stringent enough for me. I am having a serious analysis of Pathfinder 2, you're just shooting from the hip.

Except, as I noted, your analysis does not seem to be matching the data from the field.

What are you talking about? The Agents of Edgewood adventure path is written for law enforcement heroes and so it tries much harder to provide non-combat solutions. But if and when the heroes do choose combat, that combat is just as unrelentingly hard as before because the encounters are consistent with the guidelines just like before. The kobolds, the owlbear, the ankhrav...

Not the reports back I've heard on the subject. Every time I've seen someone talk about problems with APs for PF2e, they've made a clear distinction between the difficulty of Age of Ashes and Extinction Curse and the later APs.

I'm telling you that what the encounter guidelines list as reasonable (and what every single last one of Paizo PF2 modules employ) - a "moderate" encounter - can easily be a harrowing and deadly encounter. At level 1.

See above. A rather large number of people seem to disagree with you in practice. So what's your explanation there?

This is what I'm discussing. Your involvement led me to believe I had found someone to partner up with in investigating this. But it has become obvious to me you're not that person. I don't get the impression you're interested, as you're neither acknowledging or contesting these specifics.

Again, because you're operating on a premise I am not convinced of. I've explained above and previously why. If you want to explain why the trendline is people having trouble with the first two APs and not the later ones, I'll listen, but until you do you're making a claim (the one I respond to above) I do not accept.

You just want to discuss this from some overall abstract high perch, no specific system knowledge needed. But I'm not here to discuss generic "wisdom" like "there's bound to be teething issues".

Of course there is, but what are they exactly, and what is the specific cause?

At this stage consider that a rhetorical question, not an invite.

If you want to stop responding to my posts, you can do so at any time. I'm not obliged to do so simply because you find my responses annoying.