Pathfinder 2E Simplified PF2e?

[payn]

I don't have a complete list, this was more of a thought exercise than a specific desire. However, I would say:

• 3 action economy
• degrees of success
• balance
• tactical options (but could be simplified)
• char build options (but could be simplified)

Thank you for the write up. The bolded is I think the biggest sticking point. OSR games, IME, focus more on strategy outside combat than tactical within. How far do you have to go to make it OSR, but also keep PF2's soul intact? I think too far. YMMV.

 

[JAMUMU]

Thank you for the write up. The bolded is I think the biggest sticking point. OSR games, IME, focus more on strategy outside combat than tactical within. How far do you have to go to make it OSR, but also keep PF2's soul intact? I think too far. YMMV.

I'm with you on this, though I have noticed that as we've gone up in levels in our PF2 game, each character very much has their own tactical 'groove' going on and we don't stray too far out of our lanes. It took 10+ levels to get there and I wonder if giving players the good stuff earlier might be a way of simplifying things without losing the feel of the game. I guess it's the same thing 13th Age does with 4e, more or less.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I'm with you on this, though I have noticed that as we've gone up in levels in our PF2 game, each character very much has their own tactical 'groove' going on and we don't stray too far out of our lanes. It took 10+ levels to get there and I wonder if giving players the good stuff earlier might be a way of simplifying things without losing the feel of the game. I guess it's the same thing 13th Age does with 4e, more or less.

Sounds about right. Or SotDL/WW far as that goes.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Though I also think doing much simplification while keeping the PF2e balance would be a big lift.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Thank you for the write up. The bolded is I think the biggest sticking point. OSR games, IME, focus more on strategy outside combat than tactical within. How far do you have to go to make it OSR, but also keep PF2's soul intact? I think too far. YMMV.

I am not saying it has to be an OSR game, just simplified akin to an OSR game.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I am not saying it has to be an OSR game, just simplified akin to an OSR game.

The thing is, OSR games can be so simple because most of them don't expect mechanics to do much lifting at the tactical layer. Either, as the other poster said, they expect most things to be set up as the strategic layer, or they expect most meaningful tactical decisions to be largely ad-hoc decisions between the player and the GM.

 

[payn]

The thing is, OSR games can be so simple because most of them don't expect mechanics to do much lifting at the tactical layer. Either, as the other poster said, they expect most things to be set up as the strategic layer, or they expect most meaningful tactical decisions to be largely ad-hoc decisions between the player and the GM.

This. There is a reason OSR is simplified, and a reason why PF2 is not.

 

[mellored]

1: Remove most of the conditions, and all the stuff (feats, spells, items, monsters) that causes them.

2: Short rest heals everyone's HP. Kind of expected anyway, but might as well make it explicit.

What remains should be simple enough.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

1: Remove most of the conditions, and all the stuff (feats, spells, items, monsters) that causes them.

2: Short rest heals everyone's HP. Kind of expected anyway, but might as well make it explicit.

What remains should be simple enough.

That is pretty good.

I like conditions, but they do add a lot of the complexity that we didn’t have back in the day.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That is pretty good.

I like conditions, but they do add a lot of the complexity that we didn’t have back in the day.

Actually, you mostly did; they were just ad-hoc descriptions in individual spells and powers, sometimes poorly explained.