Pathfinder 2E Simplified PF2e?

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

What would a simplified version of PF2 look like? I’m thinking an OSR or Shadowdark level of complexity, but keeps its PF2 soul?

Is this even possible?

 

[The Myopic Sniper]

Step 1: Remove all feats.
Step 2: Figure out how to balance the classes so they can perform their role effectively.

That probably gets you to a much simpler game to start and since the PF2 feat system is really much more about horizontal broadening than vertical advancement, I am not even sure how much they will be missed if the classes are filled in with broader and more effective class features instead of the intense customization of the PF2 feat system.

 

[payn]

Step 1: Remove all feats.
Step 2: Figure out how to balance the classes so they can perform their role effectively.

That probably gets you to a much simpler game to start and since the PF2 feat system is really much more about horizontal broadening than vertical advancement, I am not even sure how much they will be missed if the classes are filled in with broader and more effective class features instead of the intense customization of the PF2 feat system.

I laughed at first because PF2 design has essentially turned everything into feats. Take out feats and you eliminate all character features. Though, I get what you are saying. PF2 isnt really all that customizable once you get down to it. There is much siloing going on and bumpers to keep you from going off the rails. However, I do think I have an idea that could work for this.

Typically, you have 2-3 different paths to take with any given class. You could also add archetypes to that, but lets not since we are simplifying. Lets look at the Druid. You can make a shapeshifter, spellcaster, or healer focus. There is a little overlap there, but lets leave it for conversations sake. Instead of the druid class being able to fit any of these roles, choose one and hard wire the druid to it. If the other roles cant be covered by other classes, make a new class that just does all the features without having to choose any. All Druids are now shapeshifters with a little nature magic. Done and simple. Want to be a healer or offensive spellcaster, take the class made for that.

 

[dave2008]

Step 1: Remove all feats.

That seems like a good place to start. But the game has a lot of fiddly bits that would like to see streamlined.

Step 2: Figure out how to balance the classes so they can perform their role effectively.

I think the classes are balanced, so what are you suggesting here?

 

[Justice and Rule]

I laughed at first because PF2 design has essentially turned everything into feats. Take out feats and you eliminate all character features. Though, I get what you are saying. PF2 isnt really all that customizable once you get down to it. There is much siloing going on and bumpers to keep you from going off the rails. However, I do think I have an idea that could work for this.

Typically, you have 2-3 different paths to take with any given class. You could also add archetypes to that, but lets not since we are simplifying. Lets look at the Druid. You can make a shapeshifter, spellcaster, or healer focus. There is a little overlap there, but lets leave it for conversations sake. Instead of the druid class being able to fit any of these roles, choose one and hard wire the druid to it. If the other roles cant be covered by other classes, make a new class that just does all the features without having to choose any. All Druids are now shapeshifters with a little nature magic. Done and simple. Want to be a healer or offensive spellcaster, take the class made for that.

At a certain level it could kind of work if you wanted a very simplified game, but you'd need to also greatly simplify the spell list, too. Fighters will hit hard and accurately, Barbs will hit even harder but also get hit more, Paladins will still get their reactions, Rogues will get their sneak attack... It's doable from what I'm thinking with a lot of the martials.

I mean, it's probably a project you could do: skim the class feats to a few specific paths, ancestries down to a path or two, and maybe give a few extra general feats that key to specific backgrounds when you hit certain levels. Though feels like you'd take away a lot of the flavor from the game at that point.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Thought feels like you'd take away a lot of the flavor from the game at that point.

That is the question isn’t it? What can your reduce it to and maintain the flavor? Personally i link simplifying ir y timing classes does little to reduce the flavor. However, how about getting rid of degrees of success/failure? Or crafting? Or skills?

 

[payn]

That is the question isn’t it? What can your reduce it to and maintain the flavor? Personally i link simplifying ir y timing classes does little to reduce the flavor. However, how about getting rid of degrees of success/failure? Or crafting? Or skills?

Id do the same with skills as class feats. Just choose a few that make sense for a class/ancestry and give at level ups. Generals too. Just take the feat paths and make the decision for the class from start to finish and done.

I have been thinking about degrees of success and failure and tactical play at large. Honestly, that is really the soul of PF2. However, I think that detailed tactical play would be very hard to simplify and maintain. When I hear OSR I think more strategic over tactical, answer not on character sheet, etc... Im not sure exactly where that simplify PF2 to the point of OSR is, and more importantly, will still maintain the soul of PF2. Might not be possible, but im sure you can get close.

 

[kenada]

I ran an old-school style campaign for about a year or so before PF2 burned me out on the system. I think focusing on character builds isn’t the right approach. The number of options you have at any given decision point is not very large, and the game provides suggested builds you can use if you want a particular concept and don’t want to deal with it.

These two issues are probably the biggest issues for me:

• Skill Actions. They provide some concrete customization points, but there’s a big list you need to know (or reference). If you want to simplify things, get rid of skill actions and replace them with a framework for adjudicating skills. The GM will need guidance on how to interpret degrees of success, and the VP subsystem can pick up the slack for larger endeavors (infiltration, negotiation, exploration, etc).
• Traits. It’s the core of the system, but they add a bunch of conceptual complexity because traits interact with the action economy in various ways (depending on the actions), and some of them have rules associated with them on top of that. Traits allow the core rules to remain simple by not having to include exceptions, but really the exceptions have just been moved to being encoded in the action economy. I don’t see how you solve that without radically changing the system.

I think it’s possible to change the design of the action economy while keeping tactical play. We play Middara, which is an adventure board game with tactical combat. I’d describe its mechanics overall as less complicated than PF2, but the play is still tactically engaging. The problem with that approach for PF2 is you lose the feel of 3e, which I think was intentional and an important consideration, but if you’re going for something else, that may be okay.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

I ran an old-school style campaign for about a year or so before PF2 burned me out on the system. I think focusing on character builds isn’t the right approach. The number of options you have at any given decision point is not very large, and the game provides suggested builds you can use if you want a particular concept and don’t want to deal with it.

These two issues are probably the biggest issues for me:

• Skill Actions. They provide some concrete customization points, but there’s a big list you need to know (or reference). If you want to simplify things, get rid of skill actions and replace them with a framework for adjudicating skills. The GM will need guidance on how to interpret degrees of success, and the VP subsystem can pick up the slack for larger endeavors (infiltration, negotiation, exploration, etc).
• Traits. It’s the core of the system, but they add a bunch of conceptual complexity because traits interact with the action economy in various ways (depending on the actions), and some of them have rules associated with them on top of that. Traits allow the core rules to remain simple by not having to include exceptions, but really the exceptions have just been moved to being encoded in the action economy. I don’t see how you solve that without radically changing the system.

I think it’s possible to change the design of the action economy while keeping tactical play. We play Middara, which is an adventure board game with tactical combat. I’d describe its mechanics overall as less complicated than PF2, but the play is still tactically engaging. The problem with that approach for PF2 is you lose the feel of 3e, which I think was intentional and an important consideration, but if you’re going for something else, that may be okay.

That is very helpful and along the lines of what I was thinking. The question you come up to is how much can simply before it doesn’t feel somewhat like PF2?

 

[kenada]

That is very helpful and along the lines of what I was thinking. The question you come up to is how much can simply before it doesn’t feel somewhat like PF2?

That’s going to depend on what kind of feel you’re trying to capture. I think looking at the action economy and customization are good places to start. Maybe try to keep the math consistent as well (any DC can become a modifier and any modifier a DC, compatibly).