PDA

View Full Version : What triggers some people about Pathfinder?



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

Cikomyr2
2023-01-22, 09:16 PM
So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

J-H
2023-01-22, 09:31 PM
It's a lot like 3.5, crunchy with a lot of fiddly +1, +2, -1, -2, modifiers to keep track of. Slow and excessively detailed.

Kane0
2023-01-22, 10:31 PM
Youd really have to ask those people, but i assume its something to do with the assumption that PF is 'just like D&D'. PF1 was just like 3.5, by design. PF2 is not just like 5e. They have branched somewhat drastically so those assuming they can easily convert from one to the other in short order will likely hit an unanticipated learning curve, and thus the urging to look around for something that fits the game you want to run rather than just going straight for the next 'default choice'

Zhorn
2023-01-22, 10:36 PM
For a lot of the instances I've seen first hand, it was less of a reflexive trigger against it and more of a snapping point against constantly being pestered to swap out of 5e "because pathfinder's way better".
From what I've heard; both pathfinder 1e and 2e are solid games, but like J-H was getting at; they are far more involved and take more mental bandwidth to play efficiently. And that's just not for everyone.
For many, 5e just strikes that perfect balance of being simple to learn, with a little but not too much crunch.

Many of the pathfinder advocates are big fans of crunch, and to them the level of crunch in 5e is sorely lacking. So there's a lot of repetitive proselytizing along the lines of "5e just isn't as good at [x] as it should be. You should play pathfinder instead", and when you're actively enjoying 5e and not feeling a need to swap, it can get rather annoying. Sometimes to the point of poisoning your perception of pathfinder before you've ever played it because your only mental association with it is paired with some folks that have been regularly putting down a thing you like and pestering you to change over to their "superior ways".

No, not everyone is like this. But I've seen enough of it in the local tabletop club to know it does happen. And it doesn't take that many pathfinder fanatics to build up an annoyance in a larger number of people.
I've been curious about picking up pathfinder for a while, but so many of the folks I know are just so sick of the "play pathfinder instead" types that it's become a bit of a harder sell to get folks into a group.

Hopefully the recent events help a bit, but it would have been easier if the fanatics weren't pushing as hard as they did.

Xihirli
2023-01-22, 11:07 PM
I played my first Pathfinder 2e game recently, and aside from it being a system I wasn't familiar with, I liked it very well. There's a bit of choice paralysis in making a character but I'm limiting myself to the simpler classes to start.

I was getting pretty frustrated with 5e even before the ORC migration though.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-01-22, 11:18 PM
It's a lot like 3.5, crunchy with a lot of fiddly +1, +2, -1, -2, modifiers to keep track of. Slow and excessively detailed.

This. PF1e is the epitome of "things I didn't like about 3.5...taken to their logical extremes". PF2e isn't as bad about that, but is obsessed with mechanical balance to the point of creating the illusion of choice. Sure, you've got tons of choices. And either you build them right and they all end up about exactly the same...or you don't and you kinda limp along. Tons of choices, most of which don't really matter much.


For a lot of the instances I've seen first hand, it was less of a reflexive trigger against it and more of a snapping point against constantly being pestered to swap out of 5e "because pathfinder's way better".
From what I've heard; both pathfinder 1e and 2e are solid games, but like J-H was getting at; they are far more involved and take more mental bandwidth to play efficiently. And that's just not for everyone.
For many, 5e just strikes that perfect balance of being simple to learn, with a little but not too much crunch.

Many of the pathfinder advocates are big fans of crunch, and to them the level of crunch in 5e is sorely lacking. So there's a lot of repetitive proselytizing along the lines of "5e just isn't as good at [x] as it should be. You should play pathfinder instead", and when you're actively enjoying 5e and not feeling a need to swap, it can get rather annoying. Sometimes to the point of poisoning your perception of pathfinder before you've ever played it because your only mental association with it is paired with some folks that have been regularly putting down a thing you like and pestering you to change over to their "superior ways".

No, not everyone is like this. But I've seen enough of it in the local tabletop club to know it does happen. And it doesn't take that many pathfinder fanatics to build up an annoyance in a larger number of people.
I've been curious about picking up pathfinder for a while, but so many of the folks I know are just so sick of the "play pathfinder instead" types that it's become a bit of a harder sell to get folks into a group.

Hopefully the recent events help a bit, but it would have been easier if the fanatics weren't pushing as hard as they did.

And this. The constant proselyting and boosting in forums designated for other games is wearisome. And the constant "it's 5e, but better!" (when it caters to a different style than the 5e I play) is annoying.

gomipile
2023-01-22, 11:55 PM
Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

Draconi Redfir
2023-01-23, 12:36 AM
honestly i like the crunch in pathfinder.

in my short time playing 5E, my 3rd level character is hardly any different then they were at 1st level. They still have the same skill totals, the same attack bonus, the same saves, no feats, etc. The only major thing that changed is the addition of a subclass, which honestly probably should have been something you pick at 1st level.


Compare with the same character in pathfinder, and the difference between levels 1 and 3 is huge. Attack bonus is higher, my skills increase and i can add new ones any time I'd like, my saves are better, my armour is better, I've got feats to let me customize further, everything.

One thing pathfinder did right i feel is that there are no "Dead levels". you always get SOMETHING new every level, be that spell slots, abilities, feats, or otherwise. With 5th edition though, the only real thing i noticed changing between levels is that my HP got higher, that's about it.

Pauly
2023-01-23, 01:01 AM
Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

Back in the days when 3.5 came out all TTGs - boardgames, wargames, RPGs - where much crunchier than modern games. The trend in gaming is to more streamlined resolution systems.

What happens in simulations when you use too many variables is that outcomes diverge from reality. Some effects get double counted, whilst others get cancelled by things that shouldn’t cancel them, some effects are multiplied when they should be added and vice versa.

In the 80s and 90s game designers thought they had to add more detail to simulate things accurately. Wargames, in particular, have real world outcomes that games can be measured against and the ‘simplistic’ games often provide better correlation to real world outcomes than highly complex games.

Tectorman
2023-01-23, 01:26 AM
There's a lot that P2E does right, but a lot that comes along with it that just doesn't work for me in execution (to the point that I wouldn't want to participate in the game mechanic in question just on principle). 5E does the same, but because there's less to keep track of in play, ignoring what doesn't suit me is much easier.

Here's a few examples:
Assurance: In P1E, taking 10 replaced the d20 of a skill check with a flat 10. Everything else stayed the same. The P2E equivalent is Assurance, except it's 10 plus your proficiency and nothing else. A high Strength character and a low Strength character with the same level and training in a skill will have the exact same Assurance. Yes, you're negating penalties along with bonuses when using it, but the penalties in question aren't likely to always be there, unlike your ability mod. What would you call it when you're always paying a price to maybe-sometimes negate another cost? The game, especially using Athletics in combat, especially using Assurance on your second or third action (because the MAP also goes away), assumes you want to use Assurance but I never would. It just strikes me as conniving and dishonest.

Hero Points: You start with one in a session and have a max of three. It costs one to reroll a check. It costs whatever you have left (at least one) to avoid death. So, you're incentivized to spend all but one to make the most use of these. Anything else is wasteful. You're not rewarded for being prudent, so you have to engineer and scheme to only have one. No thanks, I'd rather my character just die, because at least that's honest.

Shields: During the playtest, all shields could take three dents before breaking (Sturdy shields had a max of four dents). They could take one or two per hit. I don't know what exactly everyone's issue was, but for me, it didn't make sense that the Tarrasque couldn't destroy the dinky wooden shield I got at level 1 in one hit. Regardless of whether that was everyone else's issue or not, they changed when P2E came out to have hit points. Many threads were made showing how the math didn't add up. How low-level shields have the damage threshold and hit points to last the same two-maybe-three hits before breaking against appropriate level enemies as they did back when it was dents, but less and less so as you go up in level (Sturdy shields being the exception).
There had to be a happy medium between "One Punch Man needs to hit my shield twice to break it" and "An on-level enemy blinked in my general direction and there goes my shield again". Defenders of the new system try to say that only some shields are meant to block (and some, like the Spellguard, have features so allegedly good that they have to be bad at blocking). Except, I remember the playtest and every shield, including the Spellguard, had the same minimum ability to block.
This is where the paradigm of "I'll block the attack with my face to keep my shield intact" comes from. If I'm playing a character in P2E, I have a player character by necessity (there's no way to be playing without one). But there's less guarantee that I'll have a shield, making the shield a more precious resource than the character I'm playing as. That is the calculus this particular ruleset evokes.

Bulk: You can carry 5 plus your Str mod before being encumbered and your max is 10 plus Str mod. I've done the math, using character artwork they provide and you can easily be borderline maxed out, just on what's shown plus basic necessities, before you even get to the dungeon. You almost need to Scry inside and see if the loot you would be taking out is small enough that you actually can. Long gone are the days of the "Golf bag of weapons", and this game, failing to realize this, wants you to be picking up collectibles (even going out of its way to make consumables and even traps a supported part of gameplay).
And this is before we even get to how bulk is calculated. It's a combination of weight, volume, and shape. It comes in negligible, light, and whole numbers. So there's nothing that might be 3 light bulk or 1.5 bulk (which I don't doubt does a lot to contribute to P2E characters running low on carrying capacity before starting their first adventure). Also, the conversion factor in terms of weight is 5 to 10 pounds, and Medium characters are 6 bulk. That's right; you are 60 lbs soaking wet.

Alignment and anathema: Are in the game to an oppressive extent. At least in 5E, alignment barely exists and all I need to do is never take a Paladin above two levels (the whole "Druids just don't have the free will to decide to wear metal armor" is insufferable, though).

...

I could go on, but the point is that P2E's asks are just too big with too little reward.

Snowbluff
2023-01-23, 01:34 AM
Youd really have to ask those people, but i assume its something to do with the assumption that PF is 'just like D&D'. PF1 was just like 3.5, by design. PF2 is not just like 5e. They have branched somewhat drastically so those assuming they can easily convert from one to the other in short order will likely hit an unanticipated learning curve, and thus the urging to look around for something that fits the game you want to run rather than just going straight for the next 'default choice'
Indeed. It has zagged where 5e zigged. However, I think it is not as good as PF1 as a result of this. I find it straddling a lot of design decisions between its parent and 4e, but also with enough of its own flaws that if given the options, I would always play PF1 or 4e over it. It's like an uncanny valley for me.

This. PF1e is the epitome of "things I didn't like about 3.5...taken to their logical extremes". PF2e isn't as bad about that, but is obsessed with mechanical balance to the point of creating the illusion of choice. Sure, you've got tons of choices. And either you build them right and they all end up about exactly the same...or you don't and you kinda limp along. Tons of choices, most of which don't really matter much.

I would argue that PF1 had better decision making than PF2, and in turn 3.5 had better decision making than PF1. Sure, these 2 older systems had their share of terribly designed options, but at the same time when certain designers got a handle on how to make better options it resulted in some cool stuff. I like the Devotion Feats and Dimensional Dervish!

PF2 just makes everything the mediocrity that is Prone Shooter and makes that the standard. You're doing the work of making a complex character, but have none of the payoff.



And this. The constant proselyting and boosting in forums designated for other games is wearisome. And the constant "it's 5e, but better!" (when it caters to a different style than the 5e I play) is annoying. It is indeed troublesome and kinda amazing. I also find that when I criticize the like to state a negation and follow with the immediately obvious that doesn't really refute the point. If I were to pose "I don't like the jump being an action, PF1 and 5e handle jumping better as part of your move" they'll say its ok because it goes to 11 there are 3 actions, even though my problems with it still arose using said action system.

Satinavian
2023-01-23, 02:27 AM
Basically D&D5 and Pathfinder 1 and 2 are very different games. If people have reasons to leave 5E, the Pathfinders are not more obvious alternative versions than many other games out there. All of them need o be learned, all are different.

Pathfinder 1 is basically D&D 3E. But 3E and 5E are very different as well.

Pathfinder 2 ... personally i like the chassis, how the skills work, how you build your character from ground off with feats. It is extremely flexible but doesn't go point buy and does not have the extreme archetype bloat of later pathfinder 1.

However, as said before, the balance is off. Most of the options are pretty useless and boring. And how challenges and monsters are scaled, you basically have to always max out your strong points as well. So in the end you don't really get varied, flexible or surprising characters. You get a couple of one-trick-ponies following the very old and stale class archetypes.

If that was intentionally the feel of play they were going for, they could have achieved it with far less rules.


However, for me that makes Pathfinder 2 a far superior starting point for homebrew than 5E. I basically only have to mess with progression and feats to get a very different game experience.

JadedDM
2023-01-23, 03:22 AM
Personally, I have nothing against Pathfinder. I quite enjoyed the PC games, in fact, and I think I even have a couple of their novels.

I mostly stay away from the system because I find it far too crunchy and fiddly. I know that's some people's thing, and more power to them. But I prefer simpler stuff that relies less on rules mastery.

Mastikator
2023-01-23, 06:39 AM
Vancian casting. For me it's a deal breaker. You'll never get me to play a game with Vancian casting.

Amnestic
2023-01-23, 06:41 AM
I'm a huge fan of the Pathfinder Owlcat games, and I generally think Paizo's adventure modules/paths are a decent step above what WotC is delivering.

But there's so many fiddly numbers and bonuses here and there in PF1 (and seems to continue in PF2, from what I read of it?) that my brain just switches off if I don't have a computer to do all the calculations and checking for me. A decade and a half ago I might've cared about knowing which of all the different bonus types stack together and how to pull that into a decent character build, but these days it's just too much for me - I've got limited time and brainspace.

If Paizo ever drop a "Pathfinder Lite" option which strips back all the fiddly bits I'd probably give it a shot, but the current versions are just a bit too much for a tabletop for me. That's not to take it away from those who do like it but it ain't for me.

stoutstien
2023-01-23, 07:46 AM
No agency. Plenty of choices but they are mostly hollow.

Great system for those who don't care about that otherwise and who also enjoy building a PC rather than letting them evolve.

KorvinStarmast
2023-01-23, 09:43 AM
I was getting pretty frustrated with 5e even before the ORC migration though. I have enough 5e material in the "pre we lost out focus" category (I found Tasha's very hit and miss, content wise, and too bloaty so a lot of it is not eligible in my campaigns) that I can run 5e for the next five years. When my son (who lives in another city) can get two more people together to commit to a schedule, I am going to run Storm King's Thunder for them on roll20. I am very much looking forward to it.

in my short time playing 5E, my 3rd level character is hardly any different then they were at 1st level. Each level adds something new in tier 1, and I wonder at which class you played.
Take cleric for example.
Domain feature a 1.
Channel divinity at 2
Second level spells at 3
ASI/Stat increas at 4, or a feat.

I find your critique puzzling.

One thing pathfinder did right i feel is that there are no "Dead levels". you always get SOMETHING They tried to do that in 5e as well. Again, I find your critique puzzling.

Keltest
2023-01-23, 09:49 AM
Personally, 5e and Pathfinder (either edition) are different enough games that, even were I looking for a substitute for 5e, somebody recommending me pathfinder would be equivalent to being told to try golf when my baseball team disbanded because theyre both about hitting balls with clubs. And its really obvious to me that theyre different games, so such posts tend to come across as "let me take this excuse to talk about my favorite game instead of what youre actually trying to talk about."

Zhorn
2023-01-23, 10:19 AM
When my son (who lives in another city) can get two more people together to commit to a schedule, I am going to run Storm King's Thunder for them on roll20. I am very much looking forward to it. Aw yeah, love me some SKT.
Currently DMing it for my 4th time (foundry vtt this time for some internet friends).
Always different each playthrough.
Lots on on/off ramps for putting in custom character quests/arcs or visiting other modules for short stints; just include a giant here and there and it makes it very easy to transition back to the main story.
/sidetrack

But back on topic;
Yes, it's is a concern when folks are trying to market pathfinder as 'just like 5e
... don't do that.
If people want 5e, they can stick with 5e.
If people are honestly looking at pathfinder, be honest about how it's being its own thing.
I don't really care much for the system war narrative; "it like [x system] but better" , "[system y] is a real game, [system x] is not" etc. It drives people away with the elitist tone.

I was make a similar point to someone on discord the other day. If you want folks to join you in your system of choice; avoid the comparison game and just talk earnestly on the aspects of the system you enjoy. Less focus on getting them to drop one system for another, and just bring up the fun things that would make them want to play it even if they primarily stuck with the existing system of choice.

Tectorman
2023-01-23, 10:27 AM
Vancian casting. For me it's a deal breaker. You'll never get me to play a game with Vancian casting.

Oh my, yes! Especially since even the spontaneous casters got more Vancian-like, too.

Draconi Redfir
2023-01-23, 10:56 AM
Each level adds something new in tier 1, and I wonder at which class you played.
Take cleric for example.
Domain feature a 1.
Channel divinity at 2
Second level spells at 3
ASI/Stat increas at 4, or a feat.

I find your critique puzzling.
They tried to do that in 5e as well. Again, I find your critique puzzling.

fighter in both cases, was my first time in 5e so i wanted to keep it simple.

J-H
2023-01-23, 10:56 AM
To expand on the crunch, I have some players who are like:
"Hey, are you going to use X class ability?" "What's X?"
"What are you attuned to?" "Hmm..." cue one minute of looking things up. This guy also DMs.

5e is about the limit of crunch some players can handle. Some don't read about D&D in their spare time or prep outside of sessions at all.

KorvinStarmast
2023-01-23, 11:06 AM
fighter in both cases, was my first time in 5e so i wanted to keep it simple. OK; at level 1, second wind. At level 2 action surge. Level 3 Archetype feature. (Which for Champion is 'more crits') ASI or feat at level 4, second attack at level 5, ASI or feat at level 6.

What dead level?

@ J-H

Some don't read about D&D in their spare time or prep outside of sessions at all. That would be about 3/4ths of the players I play with, except for the ones in Phoenix's campaign.

Cikomyr2
2023-01-23, 11:06 AM
Thanks for everyone who replied to my inquiry!!

Draconi Redfir
2023-01-23, 11:55 AM
OK; at level 1, second wind. At level 2 action surge. Level 3 Archetype feature. (Which for Champion is 'more crits') ASI or feat at level 4, second attack at level 5, ASI or feat at level 6.

What dead level?

5th ed:
1st lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
2nd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
3rd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats

Pathfinder:
1st lvl: AB+3, Swim +3, Climb +3, Intimidation +2, Profession (cook) -1. Two feats
2nd lvl: AB+4, Swim +7, Climb +7, Intimidation +2, Profession (Cook) +3. Three feats
3rd lvl: AB +5, Swim +7, Climb +8, Intimidation +7, Profession (cook) +4. Four feats

There's just more feeling of progression, like I'm moving forwards and getting stronger with each level. Every level my character can cook better, can intimidate better, can fight better. If i want too, i can pick up entirely new skills to invest into. I started the game having trouble putting bread on top of bread to make a bread sandwich. now I'm the best cook in the party.

in 5th edition, I'm no better at hitting enemies then when i started. I'm no better at seeing things then when i started, i couldn't learn how to climb even if i wanted too. I can't even get better at resisting poisons or the like because saving throws aren't a thing, so i don't improve in those either.

I can heal myself a bit and take an extra action, but otherwise I'm still exactly the same as when i started.

Zuras
2023-01-23, 12:04 PM
Pathfinder, more than any other non-5e system, represents something very similar to 5e with precisely the flaws that 5e fans dislike about class, level and feat systems magnified. As a system, Pathfinder 1e just had too much build-a-bear functionality for many people. 5e got the balance right for most people (feats, but no need for long feat chains to get to your payoffs, the most common tropes are supported by specific well-done class & subclass combinations), and thus the annoyances in Pathfinder are very much in sharp focus.

Basically, it’s like Coke and Pepsi. They are more similar to each other than lemonade, but you are more likely to get an offended response if someone asks for a Coke and you say “will Pepsi be okay?” than if you offer them a lemonade.

Amidus Drexel
2023-01-23, 12:23 PM
Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

Yeah, it's wild seeing people in here complaining about the crunch in PF, because I refused to switch off of 3.5 because of the perception that PF1 was too simple. (With the benefit of a decade+ of hindsight, I can confidently say that it's more-or-less a side-grade in complexity). The uncanny-valley effect of some spells/feats/etc. having the same name but slightly different effects was enough to put me off it entirely, even if that wasn't a mechanical fault of the system at all.

I can understand people that cut their teeth on 5e or less crunch-heavy systems balking at that sort of thing.

Mastikator
2023-01-23, 12:46 PM
5th ed:
1st lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
2nd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats
3rd lvl: AB +3, Perception +1, Intimidation +4, survival +1, athletics +4. no feats

Pathfinder:
1st lvl: AB+3, Swim +3, Climb +3, Intimidation +2, Profession (cook) -1. Two feats
2nd lvl: AB+4, Swim +7, Climb +7, Intimidation +2, Profession (Cook) +3. Three feats
3rd lvl: AB +5, Swim +7, Climb +8, Intimidation +7, Profession (cook) +4. Four feats

There's just more feeling of progression, like I'm moving forwards and getting stronger with each level. Every level my character can cook better, can intimidate better, can fight better. If i want too, i can pick up entirely new skills to invest into. I started the game having trouble putting bread on top of bread to make a bread sandwich. now I'm the best cook in the party.

in 5th edition, I'm no better at hitting enemies then when i started. I'm no better at seeing things then when i started, i couldn't learn how to climb even if i wanted too. I can't even get better at resisting poisons or the like because saving throws aren't a thing, so i don't improve in those either.

I can heal myself a bit and take an extra action, but otherwise I'm still exactly the same as when i started.
I'm not familiar with the PF2 bestiary. How fast do monster AC increase with respect to their CR/level?

stoutstien
2023-01-23, 12:48 PM
I'm not familiar with the PF2 bestiary. How fast do monster AC increase with respect to their CR/level?

IMO It's like running in place if you take off the facade.

Draconi Redfir
2023-01-23, 12:49 PM
I'm not familiar with the PF2 bestiary. How fast do monster AC increase with respect to their CR/level?

not sure, talking about pathfinder 1st ed here, I've never actually tried PF2.

though to be fair, don't know for 1st ed either. seems to just depend on what you're facing.

Mastikator
2023-01-23, 01:04 PM
IMO It's like running in place if you take off the facade.

So it stays roughly 60% (or whatever number) the whole way through?

PhoenixPhyre
2023-01-23, 01:15 PM
So it stays roughly 60% (or whatever number) the whole way through?

As long as you pick up all the required ability scores, feats, and items. And are facing on-level monsters. PF2e is, from what I understand, balanced on a roughly cubic fashion--if you're facing monsters more than a couple levels above you, you're in for a really really rough time. If you're facing monsters more than a couple levels below you, you're in for a really really easy time.

To contrast, 5e has a really flat hit rate. If you assume CR = Level and a reasonable starting stat/growth rate[1] and go either by published monsters OR the DMG guidance, the hit chance is 65% hit + 5% crit at all levels except level 9, where it's 70% + 5%. Calculating against CR = level + 3 (your guideline for "boss fight") gives a band of either 60% or 65% hit change (+ 5% crit) except for level 3, where it drops to 55% (due to a tier bump for CR 6). If you go by the usual "minion" guidelines (works out to CR = ~ level/2), the hit chance is 65-70% below level 5 and then climbs to either 75 or 80% for all other levels. And that's with no magic items whatsoever.

[1] assuming a +3 in attack stat at level 1, rising to +4 at level 4 and +5 at level 8+. You can speed things up by starting higher or slow them down, but all it does is change where the breakpoints are.

Mastikator
2023-01-23, 01:37 PM
As long as you pick up all the required ability scores, feats, and items. And are facing on-level monsters. PF2e is, from what I understand, balanced on a roughly cubic fashion--if you're facing monsters more than a couple levels above you, you're in for a really really rough time. If you're facing monsters more than a couple levels below you, you're in for a really really easy time.

To contrast, 5e has a really flat hit rate. If you assume CR = Level and a reasonable starting stat/growth rate[1] and go either by published monsters OR the DMG guidance, the hit chance is 65% hit + 5% crit at all levels except level 9, where it's 70% + 5%. Calculating against CR = level + 3 (your guideline for "boss fight") gives a band of either 60% or 65% hit change (+ 5% crit) except for level 3, where it drops to 55% (due to a tier bump for CR 6). If you go by the usual "minion" guidelines (works out to CR = ~ level/2), the hit chance is 65-70% below level 5 and then climbs to either 75 or 80% for all other levels. And that's with no magic items whatsoever.

[1] assuming a +3 in attack stat at level 1, rising to +4 at level 4 and +5 at level 8+. You can speed things up by starting higher or slow them down, but all it does is change where the breakpoints are.

So, the pro of pathfinder is player feels like there's more progression (the importance of player feels can't be understated). But the pro of dnd5e is that monsters take longer to become obsolete as the game progresses. (or con, if you like, but I think it's a pro)

Still, never going to give pathfinder a chance as long as Vancian casting is the system of choice. I'd try a table that uses spell points instead.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-01-23, 01:44 PM
So, the pro of pathfinder is player feels like there's more progression (the importance of player feels can't be understated). But the pro of dnd5e is that monsters take longer to become obsolete as the game progresses. (or con, if you like, but I think it's a pro)

Still, never going to give pathfinder a chance as long as Vancian casting is the system of choice. I'd try a table that uses spell points instead.

Yeah, sorta. Definitely if your mind is a "need tons of small +numbers to feel like there's progress", PF (1 and 2) does that way better than 5e. In that limited sense it's closer to a MMO/video game--it gives you immediate (or short-loop) feedback on "numbers go up!".

Sadly, many groups play 5e like it was PF--focusing on making the numbers go up. Which vitiates the whole bounded accuracy "pro" (as far as monsters are concerned)--not because accuracy is a problem (it never was), but because monsters just vanish under the firepower. So monsters become obsolete really darn fast. A case of where using it out of spec causes issues.

stoutstien
2023-01-23, 02:13 PM
So it stays roughly 60% (or whatever number) the whole way through?
Phoenixphyre beat me to it but they way it's organized that ~60% is very dependent on the feat chain you picked and i do mean chain. It doesn't support changing directions after you start down a path. Mostly due to the action system

You want to be good at blocking with a shield then you better make sure you take these 3-9 feats or it will quickly fall off.

ngilop
2023-01-23, 10:53 PM
I am not 'triggered' by pathfinder when I tell people that other RPGs, that also include fantasy exist.


I just want people to step outside of their d20-based experiences and play some other games.

I think it is insulting to others that offering the idea that other RPGs exist is some kinda of 'anti-pathfinder' hate or other such.

Stonehead
2023-01-23, 11:29 PM
Honestly, I think it's mostly because everyone keeps spamming recommendations. Imagine if you got fired from your dream job, and instead of trying to console you, all your friends instead tried to convince you to join some other job instead. I think most people would understandably be a bit upset, and end up with a negative opinion of that other job.

There are a lot of legitimate differences between Pathfinder, P2E, and DnD 5E. There are a lot of valid reasons to prefer a whole host of other systems over it. I don't think those differences are fueling the backlash though. I doubt @firstName673 on Twitter has enough experience with other systems to even have an opinion on crunch-level vs customization.

It's important to keep in mind that your average DnD player has probably only played in one or two campaigns, both of which were likely in the same system. They don't have strong opinions on the minutia of game design like us crazies posting on forumms.


However, as said before, the balance is off. Most of the options are pretty useless and boring. And how challenges and monsters are scaled, you basically have to always max out your strong points as well. So in the end you don't really get varied, flexible or surprising characters. You get a couple of one-trick-ponies following the very old and stale class archetypes.

If that was intentionally the feel of play they were going for, they could have achieved it with far less rules.

This is so true. P2E is fun to play, the action economy is great, but it's not very fun to build. Nothing is exciting, and nothing feels impactful.

Still though, the majority of the pushback (at least, the pushback that I've seen, I could be wrong) hasn't come from people who looked through the book and/or built a character, then decided it wasn't for them. It came from 5E players lashing back against Pathfinder players trying to take advantage of a tragedy in order to proselytize their game.


Yeah, it's wild seeing people in here complaining about the crunch in PF, because I refused to switch off of 3.5 because of the perception that PF1 was too simple. (With the benefit of a decade+ of hindsight, I can confidently say that it's more-or-less a side-grade in complexity). The uncanny-valley effect of some spells/feats/etc. having the same name but slightly different effects was enough to put me off it entirely, even if that wasn't a mechanical fault of the system at all.

I can understand people that cut their teeth on 5e or less crunch-heavy systems balking at that sort of thing.

I played P1 for pretty close to a decade. I don't think it's having a decade of hindsight, I think it's having a decade of supplementary material. 2012 Pathfinder was way more simple than 2012 DnD 3.5. The nonstop release of new material eventually balanced out their complexity, but in 2012 the belief that Pathfinder was simplified 3.5 wasn't exactly wrong.

Snowbluff
2023-01-24, 03:35 AM
Still though, the majority of the pushback (at least, the pushback that I've seen, I could be wrong) hasn't come from people who looked through the book and/or built a character, then decided it wasn't for them. It came from 5E players lashing back against Pathfinder players trying to take advantage of a tragedy in order to proselytize their game.

How do you mean that? I think the "proselyiz"ing of PF2 has been happening for a long while. DO you mean that 5e players are just more agitated with it at this point, or do think you the promotion of PF2 has just hit a peak here? :smallconfused:

My main group has been pretty turned away already by PF2's systems. I just happen to know about it, or have played it enough to spot when PF2 promotion is incongruous with the play experience. Maybe it's because of my willingness and ability to respond to such statements with criticism that they stuck out to me before now.

KorvinStarmast
2023-01-24, 08:29 AM
it's closer to a MMO/video game--it gives you immediate (or short-loop) feedback on "numbers go up!". That's a good way to capture the "ding!" feeling that one sees in a variety of CRPGs.

Phoenixphyre beat me to it but they way it's organized that ~60% is very dependent on the feat chain you picked and i do mean chain.Which is a feature I don't care for, and which is something the D&D 5e does not do. (I also didn't like the ability pre req chains in Diablo II CRPG)

Honestly, I think it's mostly because everyone keeps spamming recommendations. Imagine if you got fired from your dream job, and instead of trying to console you, all your friends instead tried to convince you to join some other job instead. Last time I got fired, the thing most on my mind was getting another job.


It's important to keep in mind that your average DnD player has probably only played in one or two campaigns, both of which were likely in the same system. They don't have strong opinions on the minutia of game design like us crazies posting on forumms.Aye.


It came from 5E players lashing back against Pathfinder players trying to take advantage of a tragedy in order to proselytize their game. Almost like the PF evangelists are taking a Forgite stace of "X game is bad for you, come to the correct play style over here" (Might be a slight exaggeration)


I played P1 for pretty close to a decade. I don't think it's having a decade of hindsight, I think it's having a decade of supplementary material. 2012 Pathfinder was way more simple than 2012 DnD 3.5. The nonstop release of new material eventually balanced out their complexity, but in 2012 the belief that Pathfinder was simplified 3.5 wasn't exactly wrong. Thanks for sharing that. I am not PF experienced.

Segev
2023-01-24, 10:32 AM
I played P1 for pretty close to a decade. I don't think it's having a decade of hindsight, I think it's having a decade of supplementary material. 2012 Pathfinder was way more simple than 2012 DnD 3.5. The nonstop release of new material eventually balanced out their complexity, but in 2012 the belief that Pathfinder was simplified 3.5 wasn't exactly wrong.

Yeah, for many years, "3.PF" was what my game groups considered the standard. That is, either 3.5 or PF1 or some mishmash of both for base rules, and then open up classes and feats and spells and stuff from the other one to play in the game. So, if you were running PF1 base rules, you still drew on the feats and classes and other stuff from 3.5.

You cannot do this with PF2 and 5e, and that's why I think "switch to PF2!" calls are landing on deaf or even irritated ears.

If the company that made it keeps making material, "Level-Up 5e" is the more likely "new Pathfinder" if D&D 5.1 bombs as hard with the fans as 4e did.

Cikomyr2
2023-01-24, 10:56 AM
I am not 'triggered' by pathfinder when I tell people that other RPGs, that also include fantasy exist.


I just want people to step outside of their d20-based experiences and play some other games.

I think it is insulting to others that offering the idea that other RPGs exist is some kinda of 'anti-pathfinder' hate or other such.

You are inferring that all reactions I've seen were all anti-pathfinder.

It's not the case, but I have seen a lot of virulent anti-pathfinder sentiments, or even reaction to anti-pathfinder sentiments, and I wanted to understand the rationale behind this, since I am outside the community where this discussion must have been going on for years now.

I don't play Pathfinder myself, I just kind of know some things about it, and I have no real opinion on the matter.

warty goblin
2023-01-24, 04:04 PM
So I'm considering trying to set up an RPG group with my GF and a couple friends. I really cannot imagine inflicting Pathfinder 2E on them. Like, I read that rulebook, and it is both insanely over-fiddly, and extremely closed off in terms of player options. Yes there's a lot of options in the rules, but those options are so specific and fiddly they create a strong impression that unless you took the feat, you can't do it. As a general action resolution tool it seems severely hemmed in.

Like, my GF and the other likely participants are not going to have patience for tracking their multi-attack penalty, which abilities can only be used with a multi-attack penalty, and which strikes can only be used once a turn. I get that there are people who really love having a bunch of rules to learn and levers to pull, but they will not find this sort of minutia fun or engaging. This will lead to annoyance and loss of engagement because either they can't remember how to do something, van only remember how to do like one thing, or have to constantly ask how to do stuff.

I want them to have fun on a fantasy adventure. And the first time I try to explain that they can't run ten feet, jump a chasm, then run another ten feet and hit the orc with their sword because that takes three actions even though their speed is 30 feet? That's not a fantasy adventure, that's filling out taxes.

It's not that I'm sold on D&D either. Frankly that's also more complex than I'd like for this purpose. But at least with that I can imagine how to explain the thing. and having explained it, I think it's plausible that they actually feel empowered to try to do stuff in the game, both because know how things work, and they aren't so drowned in rules they get paralyzed.

Kane0
2023-01-24, 06:04 PM
So I'm considering trying to set up an RPG group with my GF and a couple friends. I really cannot imagine inflicting Pathfinder 2E on them. Like, I read that rulebook, and it is both insanely over-fiddly, and extremely closed off in terms of player options. Yes there's a lot of options in the rules, but those options are so specific and fiddly they create a strong impression that unless you took the feat, you can't do it. As a general action resolution tool it seems severely hemmed in.

Like, my GF and the other likely participants are not going to have patience for tracking their multi-attack penalty, which abilities can only be used with a multi-attack penalty, and which strikes can only be used once a turn. I get that there are people who really love having a bunch of rules to learn and levers to pull, but they will not find this sort of minutia fun or engaging. This will lead to annoyance and loss of engagement because either they can't remember how to do something, van only remember how to do like one thing, or have to constantly ask how to do stuff.

I want them to have fun on a fantasy adventure. And the first time I try to explain that they can't run ten feet, jump a chasm, then run another ten feet and hit the orc with their sword because that takes three actions even though their speed is 30 feet? That's not a fantasy adventure, that's filling out taxes.

It's not that I'm sold on D&D either. Frankly that's also more complex than I'd like for this purpose. But at least with that I can imagine how to explain the thing. and having explained it, I think it's plausible that they actually feel empowered to try to do stuff in the game, both because know how things work, and they aren't so drowned in rules they get paralyzed.

I've been reading Five Torches Deep this week, take a look at that?

Stonehead
2023-01-25, 03:41 PM
How do you mean that? I think the "proselyiz"ing of PF2 has been happening for a long while. DO you mean that 5e players are just more agitated with it at this point, or do think you the promotion of PF2 has just hit a peak here? :smallconfused:

Both probably. I agree "Hey, you should try this thing I like" is a constant phenomenon. I might even go so far as to argue that it's basically harmless.

But, people usually offer advice or suggestions when someone is complaining about something. As much of a meme as "You should try Pathfinder" has become, you rarely see it in positive, optimistic discussions of DnD. Now that everyone's complaining about the license, there are lots of opportunities to make suggestions.

On top of that, DnD players are more agitated in general because of the leaked changes. Being in a bad mood already, combined with the sharp increase in something that already bothered them a little bit, and getting agitated seems inevitable.


Yeah, for many years, "3.PF" was what my game groups considered the standard. That is, either 3.5 or PF1 or some mishmash of both for base rules, and then open up classes and feats and spells and stuff from the other one to play in the game. So, if you were running PF1 base rules, you still drew on the feats and classes and other stuff from 3.5.

You cannot do this with PF2 and 5e, and that's why I think "switch to PF2!" calls are landing on deaf or even irritated ears.

Totally possible. People used to joke that Pathfinder was Dnd 3.5.5. Still though, I don't think your average DnD player cares as much about the specifics of the rules as obsessed forum posters do. I suppose you could make the argument that the more knowledgeable, experienced players and DMs are making those complains, and the general sentiment is bubbling up to the community as a whole. I'm not sure.


I want them to have fun on a fantasy adventure. And the first time I try to explain that they can't run ten feet, jump a chasm, then run another ten feet and hit the orc with their sword because that takes three actions even though their speed is 30 feet? That's not a fantasy adventure, that's filling out taxes.

Pathfinder is a decent substitute for DnD, but it sounds like your group doesn't want a substitute for DnD. There are a lot of rules-lite, battlefield-of-the-mind systems out there. I'm not super knowledgeable about the options, it's not really my thing, but I'm sure you could find something you like a lot better than DnD if you ask around here.

Keltest
2023-01-25, 05:32 PM
Both probably. I agree "Hey, you should try this thing I like" is a constant phenomenon. I might even go so far as to argue that it's basically harmless.

But, people usually offer advice or suggestions when someone is complaining about something. As much of a meme as "You should try Pathfinder" has become, you rarely see it in positive, optimistic discussions of DnD. Now that everyone's complaining about the license, there are lots of opportunities to make suggestions.

On top of that, DnD players are more agitated in general because of the leaked changes. Being in a bad mood already, combined with the sharp increase in something that already bothered them a little bit, and getting agitated seems inevitable.



Totally possible. People used to joke that Pathfinder was Dnd 3.5.5. Still though, I don't think your average DnD player cares as much about the specifics of the rules as obsessed forum posters do. I suppose you could make the argument that the more knowledgeable, experienced players and DMs are making those complains, and the general sentiment is bubbling up to the community as a whole. I'm not sure.



Pathfinder is a decent substitute for DnD, but it sounds like your group doesn't want a substitute for DnD. There are a lot of rules-lite, battlefield-of-the-mind systems out there. I'm not super knowledgeable about the options, it's not really my thing, but I'm sure you could find something you like a lot better than DnD if you ask around here.

I would argue that the Pathfinder/3.5 crowd probably care a great deal about the specifics of the rules, because PF was created specifically for that crowd to address the ending of any sort of ongoing support or quality of life improvements. That particular market is defined by caring about the specifics.

Likewise, the 5e crowd is probably in the same boat for their edition, which is a contributing reason for why theyre reacting negatively to being told to try Pathfinder. Its just straight up not the game they want to be playing, otherwise they would be playing it already.

Segev
2023-01-25, 05:36 PM
Totally possible. People used to joke that Pathfinder was Dnd 3.5.5. Still though, I don't think your average DnD player cares as much about the specifics of the rules as obsessed forum posters do. I suppose you could make the argument that the more knowledgeable, experienced players and DMs are making those complains, and the general sentiment is bubbling up to the community as a whole. I'm not sure.

I always heard it as "3.75" rather than "3.5.5," but the sentiment is the same.

And in my experience, players of D&D who aren't already steeped in an idea of trying many different systems tend to be very hard to convince to try a different system for the same sort of game. Moving from PF1 to 5e is a big jump, but doable because 5e is in many ways easier to grasp, so if they were the sort of player that isn't huge on digging into and memorizing rules in the first place, it was easier on them. The shift to PF2 is a much bigger paradigm shift in how the rule assumptions work, and is also a shift to far more fiddly mechanics than 5e. It also, speaking as a PF1 fan, strikes me as sucking a lot of the fun out of the game in favor of locking down number ranges (one of 4e's problems, though not the biggest one), and having tons of choices that...don't do much. And choices that are traps, because you really need to make ONE choice early on that you're going to stick with, and choosing anything but the next thing in the line is a much bigger nerf to your character than, say, multiclassing in 5e is.

Now, I'm sure PF2 is actually better than I'm giving it credit for, but it is a difficult sell to me, which means I fully buy that it's an even harder sell to people less likely to immerse themselves in rules than I am, who already are at least reasonably familiar with 5e, and who will look at PF2 as "this is unfamiliar, so it sucks." Thus, making the change involves getting ALL of your already somewhat disgruntled players (who are bitter over the current kerfluffle, if you've got the need/want to change to PF2 over this, anyway) to sign on to learning a system that is NOT as familiar as it seems to be being advertised as, and which has a very different paradigm of what choices to make and how meaningful they are.

sithlordnergal
2023-01-25, 05:53 PM
For me, its because I started in 3.5 DnD. PF1 was basically so close to 3.5 that they were essentially one and the same...heck, for a while I didn't even realize the two were different systems. I just figured it was just another, bigger splatbook. XD

Then I moved to 5e, and ended up loving the simplified systems. You no longer needed Strength and Dexterity in order to make a competent Archer, no more feat chains to deal with, no more need to worry about getting a +25 to hit by carrying a dragon hoard's worth of magic items. I haven't ever gone back to 3.5, and the few times I've thought about it I just try to make a new character and I'm instantly reminded why I swapped. As such, I haven't had a need to change systems.

Chauncymancer
2023-01-25, 06:26 PM
Wow. Back when I played 3.5, we considered it to be not very crunchy at all. I haven't gotten into 5e much, so I'm not sure how it compares when supplemental materials are taken into account.

An ongoing problem in talking about games is the idea that current edition of D&D is definitionally crunch medium, when some editions have been objectively speaking light or heavy.

warty goblin
2023-01-25, 07:29 PM
Mostly I think things have just gotten much less crunchy. Or at least much less crunchy in terms of simulationism/representationalism. Something like Pathfinder 2E is, in some ways, really crunchy, but most of its rules are clearly there to give the players some levers to pull with some fluff bolted on top. But that's very different from some of the older, weirder RPGs on my shelf, with their various rules for blood loss, de-limbing, how fast your character can accelerate, their turning radius, and so on.

Stonehead
2023-01-26, 11:43 AM
I would argue that the Pathfinder/3.5 crowd probably care a great deal about the specifics of the rules, because PF was created specifically for that crowd to address the ending of any sort of ongoing support or quality of life improvements. That particular market is defined by caring about the specifics.

Likewise, the 5e crowd is probably in the same boat for their edition, which is a contributing reason for why theyre reacting negatively to being told to try Pathfinder. Its just straight up not the game they want to be playing, otherwise they would be playing it already.

The PF1/3.5 crowd care for sure. The subset of the 5e crowd who are active forum posters probably care a lot about the fiddly mechanics as well. But DnD 5E is currently the "default" rpg. Being the current edition of the most popular brand means that if anyone doesn't care about the minutia of rules differences, 5E is the system they'll end up playing.

For someone who's played a dozen different systems with dedicated groups for the past decade, it can be hard to see how much the player base has exploded into the casual market. A lot of 5e players aren't super passionate about rules, not because there aren't many 5e players who are. There are a lot of 5e superfans, but 5e is the default system, so if you have no opinions, it's what you'll end up playing.

Segev
2023-01-26, 12:09 PM
The PF1/3.5 crowd care for sure. The subset of the 5e crowd who are active forum posters probably care a lot about the fiddly mechanics as well. But DnD 5E is currently the "default" rpg. Being the current edition of the most popular brand means that if anyone doesn't care about the minutia of rules differences, 5E is the system they'll end up playing.

For someone who's played a dozen different systems with dedicated groups for the past decade, it can be hard to see how much the player base has exploded into the casual market. A lot of 5e players aren't super passionate about rules, not because there aren't many 5e players who are. There are a lot of 5e superfans, but 5e is the default system, so if you have no opinions, it's what you'll end up playing.

And if suddenly options explode because everyone who published for 5e now has to scramble to find new things to publish for....

Jervis
2023-01-27, 07:34 PM
So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

Pathfinder is crunchier than 5e and most people that want crunchier 5e already found PF or some other game. Most 5e only players in my experience don’t want that complexity. That’s just my take on the matter as someone who’s preferred edition is 3.5/PF1

Snowbluff
2023-01-27, 08:37 PM
I always heard it as "3.75" rather than "3.5.5," but the sentiment is the same.

And in my experience, players of D&D who aren't already steeped in an idea of trying many different systems tend to be very hard to convince to try a different system for the same sort of game. Moving from PF1 to 5e is a big jump, but doable because 5e is in many ways easier to grasp, so if they were the sort of player that isn't huge on digging into and memorizing rules in the first place, it was easier on them. The shift to PF2 is a much bigger paradigm shift in how the rule assumptions work, and is also a shift to far more fiddly mechanics than 5e. It also, speaking as a PF1 fan, strikes me as sucking a lot of the fun out of the game in favor of locking down number ranges (one of 4e's problems, though not the biggest one), and having tons of choices that...don't do much. And choices that are traps, because you really need to make ONE choice early on that you're going to stick with, and choosing anything but the next thing in the line is a much bigger nerf to your character than, say, multiclassing in 5e is.

Now, I'm sure PF2 is actually better than I'm giving it credit for, but it is a difficult sell to me, which means I fully buy that it's an even harder sell to people less likely to immerse themselves in rules than I am, who already are at least reasonably familiar with 5e, and who will look at PF2 as "this is unfamiliar, so it sucks." Thus, making the change involves getting ALL of your already somewhat disgruntled players (who are bitter over the current kerfluffle, if you've got the need/want to change to PF2 over this, anyway) to sign on to learning a system that is NOT as familiar as it seems to be being advertised as, and which has a very different paradigm of what choices to make and how meaningful they are.

You're being more than fair to PF2. It's been kinda panned by all of the PF1 players in my group. There are more problems with how all of this is implemented that became more evident as we played, and some of lost patience with it. I'm still finding out things that people don't like as from people who still do, and at least one of them is thinking of just making an overhaul for the system.

Samayu
2023-01-27, 09:57 PM
So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

Some guys in my current D&D group play Pathfinder, and it sounds more complicated. I don't like class/level based systems to begin with, so I prefer a more streamlined game.

Plus, I think the systems are probably too similar for me to remember the rules of either properly if I'm going back and forth. So I'll only play PF once I've totally given up D&D.

Segev
2023-01-28, 01:48 AM
Some guys in my current D&D group play Pathfinder, and it sounds more complicated. I don't like class/level based systems to begin with, so I prefer a more streamlined game.

Plus, I think the systems are probably too similar for me to remember the rules of either properly if I'm going back and forth. So I'll only play PF once I've totally given up D&D.

Just because you mentioned not liking class/level-based systems, I thought I'd mention BESM (3e is probably the best edition) or TriStat dX (which is a freely-available version of the core system BESM operates on). They're points-based build systems, and I find them more direct and less annoyingly fiddly than GURPS while still having a lot of ways you can engage in system mastery during the game and during the chargen minigame that most of us on gaming forums seem to really enjoy.

Corvus
2023-01-28, 02:17 AM
I have nothing against it but if isnt for me. I don't like 3e, and given pf is based on that then it doesn't work for me.

raipartygirl
2023-01-28, 02:29 AM
Re: What triggers some people about Pathfinder?

Ignimortis
2023-01-28, 04:29 AM
PF1e took the worst parts about 3.5 and, for the most part, didn't do anything about them. Specific spell nerfs and small class changes aren't that important in the grand scheme of things - 1PP content for Pathfinder follows a very samey scheme that mixes and matches the 3.5 PHB concepts, but very rarely goes beyond. The myriad bonus types, the focus on "you either do X at-will and it kinda sucks or just provides basic numbers, or you do it Y times per day, and it's either broken or useless" design, the idea that only dedicated builds should be good at things, etc. About the only semi-unique class that Paizo made is, I believe, the Kineticist, which is horribly overdesigned and not very good anyway.

Most of the good stuff for PF1 that I've seen in play came from Dreamscarred Press, who were nice enough to put their things on the d20pfsrd for free (my hat's off to you, people).

PF2 goes a step beyond PF1 - while it does cut some of PF1's crust and reins in the caster supremacy, the end result is somewhere between the bad parts of 4e (unpleasantly tight math, excessive focus on teamwork to the detriment of personal capability, the idea that any class a role they need to fulfill and not much else besides that role) and the bad parts of low-level PF1 (uninspired classes and abilities, high resistance to anything that isn't at-will or X/day, with Focus spells being rather lame, making a lot of things only function for dedicated builds). The end result feels a lot less like a TTRPG and a lot more like a wargame with in-depth unit customization.

I'm currently DMing a PF1 game and playing in a PF2 game. If it weren't for factors unrelated to the actual rulesets, I'd drop both right now. They aren't really good games (the rulesets, the games themselves are good), and while PF1 is workable as a player, I do not envy PF1 GMs. I've also heard that PF2 is extremely easy to DM, and I can hazard a guess why - it's because the players can't surprise you much, and the numbers are tight enough that you can just plop down a couple monsters and be sure it's a balanced fight.

I might be up to play PF1 with DSP content at some point in the future, but that's about it - I don't want to interact with either edition all that much anymore.

Segev
2023-01-28, 04:37 PM
PF1e took the worst parts about 3.5 and, for the most part, didn't do anything about them. Specific spell nerfs and small class changes aren't that important in the grand scheme of things - 1PP content for Pathfinder follows a very samey scheme that mixes and matches the 3.5 PHB concepts, but very rarely goes beyond. The myriad bonus types, the focus on "you either do X at-will and it kinda sucks or just provides basic numbers, or you do it Y times per day, and it's either broken or useless" design, the idea that only dedicated builds should be good at things, etc. About the only semi-unique class that Paizo made is, I believe, the Kineticist, which is horribly overdesigned and not very good anyway.

Most of the good stuff for PF1 that I've seen in play came from Dreamscarred Press, who were nice enough to put their things on the d20pfsrd for free (my hat's off to you, people).

PF2 goes a step beyond PF1 - while it does cut some of PF1's crust and reins in the caster supremacy, the end result is somewhere between the bad parts of 4e (unpleasantly tight math, excessive focus on teamwork to the detriment of personal capability, the idea that any class a role they need to fulfill and ) and the bad parts of low-level PF1 (uninspired classes and abilities, high resistance to anything that isn't at-will or X/day, with Focus spells being rather lame, making a lot of things only function for dedicated builds). The end result feels a lot less like a TTRPG and a lot more like a wargame with in-depth unit customization.

I'm currently DMing a PF1 game and playing in a PF2 game. If it weren't for factors unrelated to the actual rulesets, I'd drop both right now. They aren't really good games, and while PF1 is workable as a player, I do not envy PF1 GMs. I've also heard that PF2 is extremely easy to DM, and I can hazard a guess why - it's because the players can't surprise you much, and the numbers are tight enough that you can just plop down a couple monsters and be sure it's a balanced fight.

I might be up to play PF1 with DSP content at some point in the future, but that's about it - I don't want to interact with either edition all that much anymore.
I like PF1 a lot. DSP does great work in it, but the game works just fine in general, in my opinion. Of course, I don't share the dim view some take on 3.5's "rougher" mechanics. I think they're largely fine in real play, not having seen caster supremacy be a problem except when either the caster player was cheating about how his powers actually work, or the non-caster was deliberately refusing to engage in the game. (And I have seen non-caster PCs be as big problems when the player is the same kind of cheater.)

There are problems, yes. They're not, to me, so big as to ruin the game. They also can be house ruled much more easily than they can be fixed overall, if only because house rules can work for a particular table or game where the problems they would introduce just don't come up for table- or game-specific reasons.

Pex
2023-01-28, 05:08 PM
Pathfinder is crunchy. There's no denying it, but Pathfinder doesn't have to apologize for it. It's fine some people don't like it, just like some people don't like 5E not having rules for stuff the DM has to make it up. I'm playing a Pathfinder 1E game, and I do notice a lot of game pauses to figure out a rule. I've also noticed the same thing happens in 5E games. Some players/DMs get absolutely irritated by that. Others don't. The discussions happen because even though the DM is the person to make the ruling the players abide, while it is the DM's campaign it is everyone's game. Everyone has equal value in the fun and play of the game. Ignoring donkey cavities, everyone wants a fair game.

Game mechanics are a matter of taste. You are not wrong for liking one system and not the other.

Ignimortis
2023-01-28, 07:47 PM
I like PF1 a lot. DSP does great work in it, but the game works just fine in general, in my opinion. Of course, I don't share the dim view some take on 3.5's "rougher" mechanics. I think they're largely fine in real play, not having seen caster supremacy be a problem except when either the caster player was cheating about how his powers actually work, or the non-caster was deliberately refusing to engage in the game. (And I have seen non-caster PCs be as big problems when the player is the same kind of cheater.)

There are problems, yes. They're not, to me, so big as to ruin the game. They also can be house ruled much more easily than they can be fixed overall, if only because house rules can work for a particular table or game where the problems they would introduce just don't come up for table- or game-specific reasons.
My general opinion is that D&D-likes have peaked with late 3.5 (and even that wasn't a high peak, there are plenty of problems with the game, but at least it had the right spirit by 2006 or so). I find that the parts of PF1 that work are the parts of 3.5 that've worked fine anyway (in particular, how flexible the math is), but the parts of 3.5 that are great often never made it into PF1 (a lot of new class mechanics, the attempts to make feats more impactful, etc), while the dull sacred cows have.

My gripes with Pathfinder (both editions) can be best expressed as "why does everyone try to copy the 3e PHB for 20 years now, it's one of the worst books of the edition content-wise, and yet you keep doing it over". Pathfinder, being a non-D&D product, could've actually moved some ground. Instead it insists on trying to get the 3e PHB experience right for more than a decade now. For instance, PF2 is a decent game, provided that all you want out of D&D is low-level 3e (in feel and ability scope) grid-focused teamwork-heavy tactical combat with lots of character building. It's also possibly the dullest TTRPG I have ever played, and I count Shadowrun's 5e Matrix play among those.

animorte
2023-01-28, 08:35 PM
Phoenixphyre beat me to it but they way it's organized that ~60% is very dependent on the feat chain you picked and i do mean chain. It doesn't support changing directions after you start down a path. Mostly due to the action system

You want to be good at blocking with a shield then you better make sure you take these 3-9 feats or it will quickly fall off.

Thanks. I will likely never touch it. Ridiculous amounts of feat chains just to keep your choice relevant was my least favorite thing about 3.5e (also unnecessary skill maths, though at least that was much more satisfying).

Snowbluff
2023-01-28, 08:41 PM
My general opinion is that D&D-likes have peaked with late 3.5 (and even that wasn't a high peak, there are plenty of problems with the game, but at least it had the right spirit by 2006 or so). I find that the parts of PF1 that work are the parts of 3.5 that've worked fine anyway (in particular, how flexible the math is), but the parts of 3.5 that are great often never made it into PF1 (a lot of new class mechanics, the attempts to make feats more impactful, etc), while the dull sacred cows have.

My gripes with Pathfinder (both editions) can be best expressed as "why does everyone try to copy the 3e PHB for 20 years now, it's one of the worst books of the edition content-wise, and yet you keep doing it over". Pathfinder, being a non-D&D product, could've actually moved some ground. Instead it insists on trying to get the 3e PHB experience right for more than a decade now. For instance, PF2 is a decent game, provided that all you want out of D&D is low-level 3e (in feel and ability scope) grid-focused teamwork-heavy tactical combat with lots of character building. It's also possibly the dullest TTRPG I have ever played, and I count Shadowrun's 5e Matrix play among those.

This hits the nail on the head for me. I think PF1 is elevated by adding 3PP content to fill in the missing, weird alternate mechanics that 3.5 added over time, but it otherwise is just 3.5 really. Later 3.5 is full of really slick new classes and awesome feat categories that put Weapon Focus and PF's Prone Shooter to shame.

PF2 was an exciting opportunity, on the onset anyway. But when I examine it in hindsight, I get the feeling they didn't want to change a whole lot. They just wanted to do the motions and get back to their status quo in terms of mechanics, to the point we have BAB attack penalty tacked onto their shiny new 3 action system as MAP.

warty goblin
2023-01-28, 09:36 PM
PF2 was an exciting opportunity, on the onset anyway. But when I examine it in hindsight, I get the feeling they didn't want to change a whole lot. They just wanted to do the motions and get back to their status quo in terms of mechanics, to the point we have BAB attack penalty tacked onto their shiny new 3 action system as MAP.

5E dropping the iterative attack penalty is honestly a marvelous piece of design. It keeps the math simple, fits with the design philosophy of not needing to hunt up tons if fiddly bonuses (the only way an attack at -10 matters) and plays right into the core fantasy of the fighter - hitting things with a whacking big sword. Not getting one decent shot, followed by a pathetic series of increasingly futile follow-ups, but making big, powerful strikes.

So naturally PF2 can't get rid of it. If you don't have a bunch of bonuses or penalties or number things that let you pull other switches in the game, how can you even begin to have fun? Fun isn't interacting with the game world, fun is pressing a button to change the numbers briefly.

Pex
2023-01-28, 11:52 PM
Thanks. I will likely never touch it. Ridiculous amounts of feat chains just to keep your choice relevant was my least favorite thing about 3.5e (also unnecessary skill maths, though at least that was much more satisfying).

It's a style choice. Some people really want to be Shield Masters, so taking the specific feats that do that when they become available is a feature or whatever your shtick is. A different character of the same class may go two-weapons, two handed weapons, or one handed no shield. No one is supposed to be able to do everything, but if you want to diversify your character a bit the option is there even within a single class. A Rogue can be a Scoundrel, Thief, or Enforcer taking feats along the way that emphasize those playstyles. However, if a Scoundrel wants to pick up some Thief or Enforcer stuff he can. It's like multiclassing within your own class. Other classes have similar concept. If you don't always want to use a shield as a fighter you can choose other fighting styles, but you can't then complain you're not as good with shields as the one who took the higher level shield feats remaining focused in shield use.

It really isn't that much different in 5E. You pick your subclass. All your abilities are chosen for you. A few give you choices limited in number.


5E dropping the iterative attack penalty is honestly a marvelous piece of design. It keeps the math simple, fits with the design philosophy of not needing to hunt up tons if fiddly bonuses (the only way an attack at -10 matters) and plays right into the core fantasy of the fighter - hitting things with a whacking big sword. Not getting one decent shot, followed by a pathetic series of increasingly futile follow-ups, but making big, powerful strikes.

So naturally PF2 can't get rid of it. If you don't have a bunch of bonuses or penalties or number things that let you pull other switches in the game, how can you even begin to have fun? Fun isn't interacting with the game world, fun is pressing a button to change the numbers briefly.

True, the attack penalty is annoying, but if you think your third attack will miss anyway then it's better to use that action or two using feats that provide a bonus or rider effect on one attack that will hit because there is no multi-attack penalty. Just doing "I attack" every round is boring. Warrior classes are given Nice Things to do.

Ignimortis
2023-01-29, 02:53 AM
5E dropping the iterative attack penalty is honestly a marvelous piece of design. It keeps the math simple, fits with the design philosophy of not needing to hunt up tons if fiddly bonuses (the only way an attack at -10 matters) and plays right into the core fantasy of the fighter - hitting things with a whacking big sword. Not getting one decent shot, followed by a pathetic series of increasingly futile follow-ups, but making big, powerful strikes.

So naturally PF2 can't get rid of it. If you don't have a bunch of bonuses or penalties or number things that let you pull other switches in the game, how can you even begin to have fun? Fun isn't interacting with the game world, fun is pressing a button to change the numbers briefly.
I mean, the 3.5/PF1 full attack math compared to AC growth was such that at level 11 you almost automatically hit your first attack before good positioning and buffs/debuffs, and your third attack thus has a 50% or so chance to hit. It begins to be pronounced exactly around the time you get your second attack on full BAB classes - you start off at level 1 by hitting average AC on a 7 or 8, but by level 6 you're hitting your first attack against average AC on a 3 or 4 or so, and to-hit keeps improving against same-level average AC.

PF2 tightened the math a lot, to the extent that you are never guaranteed a hit unless fighting something severely below your level, and your typical first attack against a same level creature on a non-Fighter hits on an 8 or a 9 before positioning or buffs. This makes the third attack absolutely useless unless you have some means of reducing the multiple attack penalty - but also means that you can quite often just spend the whole round missing, the same issue 5e has sometimes (fighting an AC20, CR5 Roper at level 4 or 5 is extremely unpleasant, for instance). Part of 3.5's fun was the assured competence of higher-level characters who might not hit their whole salvo, but at least do something - or channel their expertise into getting a single more powerful strike (martial maneuvers or PF1's Vital Strike) to hit with a 95% chance of success.

And 5e made a fumble of its' own - your damage feels increasingly less powerful over time. What seemed to be quite decent at level 5 (I do 2d6+5, two times per round! that might kill a slightly lower-level monster in two Attack actions!) falls behind HP growth very quickly, and at level 17, getting three attacks for 2d6+8 feels like fighting with a toothpick - because at that point a typical enemy has HP in the hundreds, and you'd need to whack them ten times before they even start to feel it.

It's a style choice. Some people really want to be Shield Masters, so taking the specific feats that do that when they become available is a feature or whatever your shtick is. A different character of the same class may go two-weapons, two handed weapons, or one handed no shield. No one is supposed to be able to do everything, but if you want to diversify your character a bit the option is there even within a single class. A Rogue can be a Scoundrel, Thief, or Enforcer taking feats along the way that emphasize those playstyles. However, if a Scoundrel wants to pick up some Thief or Enforcer stuff he can. It's like multiclassing within your own class. Other classes have similar concept. If you don't always want to use a shield as a fighter you can choose other fighting styles, but you can't then complain you're not as good with shields as the one who took the higher level shield feats remaining focused in shield use.
And due to underlying mechanics, you are pretty much stuck with your choices. Want to be a 2H warrior with a greatsword? Congratulations, now you cannot trip, disarm, shove, and all those other basic maneuvers that require a free hand - until you pick up several feats that make it possible. PF2 design is prone to "you start off with the ability to do X, but without feats it's either bad or outright unusable".



True, the attack penalty is annoying, but if you think your third attack will miss anyway then it's better to use that action or two using feats that provide a bonus or rider effect on one attack that will hit because there is no multi-attack penalty. Just doing "I attack" every round is boring. Warrior classes are given Nice Things to do.
Sadly, these "nice things" are usually the ability to just do regular maneuvers slightly better action economy-wise or success-wise. The primary 2H feat, Power Attack, is arguably worse than attacking twice. The primary TWF feat, Double Slice, is marginally better than attacking twice (you don't suffer a penalty for attacking a second time until you're done with both attacks). The Knockdown feat also just lets you Trip someone when attacking (but at the same 2-action cost) without a penalty for attacking before the Trip attempt. Etc, etc.

There are a few outliers, but they're usually class-specific and so high-level you won't be using them for long. For instance, a Fighter does get to teleport and attack - at level 20 (if they take a feat that is, technically, a lot worse than their default level 20 feat). My Harbinger has been doing that as a maneuver at level 3, and could do it at-will at level 9. My Swordsage has been doing that since level 9, too. A Fighter also gets the (chance to pick up an) ability to deflect (not reflect, deflect) arrows and eventually spells - at level 10 and level 18 respectively. My Warblade has been doing that as a maneuver since level 3. And what's more, it didn't take up one of very limited (11 feats over 20 levels) feat slots - even the simplest Warblade learns 13 maneuvers and 4 stances over 20 levels that can be later switched for better versions instead of being in "trees" that only give you full functionality by feat two or three.

Classes that are not Fighter get even fewer cool abilities, with pretty much one or two schticks that go beyond "I hit good and maybe do a basic combat maneuver I could do at level 1". Even then, a lot of those abilities are simply disappointing mechanically - you can now cause damage to creatures you shove into walls! How much damage? STR mod (maxes out at 7)? In a game where enemies get into triple digit HP by level 8? Monk is the exception for getting quite a few cool abilities, as usual, but I cannot build a Monk that performs well in heavy armor and with a zweihander.

PF2's martials only get nice things when compared to 5e martials or 3e's core martials. They are still maddeningly low-fantasy and low-scale, designed mostly to be single-target DPR machines with anything else they do being largely incidental.

Some skill feats are quite good, though. But everyone gets skills and skill feats.

Satinavian
2023-01-29, 03:10 AM
My general opinion is that D&D-likes have peaked with late 3.5 (and even that wasn't a high peak, there are plenty of problems with the game, but at least it had the right spirit by 2006 or so). I find that the parts of PF1 that work are the parts of 3.5 that've worked fine anyway (in particular, how flexible the math is), but the parts of 3.5 that are great often never made it into PF1 (a lot of new class mechanics, the attempts to make feats more impactful, etc), while the dull sacred cows have. I personally think that PF1 is the better incarnation, even first party only. That is to no small part because of all the new 6/9 casters that for me hit a sweet spot in power/versatility/theme. I am not sure why 3.x basically stopped after the bard here. The heavy reliance on archetypes as alternative to multiclassing (which kills your higher class abilities) was nice as well. As were the sorely needed unchained updates to certain classes.

But nothing i can play in PF2 feels even remotely like a PF1 6/9 caster. It is all one-trick-ponies.

Ignimortis
2023-01-29, 04:40 AM
This hits the nail on the head for me. I think PF1 is elevated by adding 3PP content to fill in the missing, weird alternate mechanics that 3.5 added over time, but it otherwise is just 3.5 really. Later 3.5 is full of really slick new classes and awesome feat categories that put Weapon Focus and PF's Prone Shooter to shame.

PF2 was an exciting opportunity, on the onset anyway. But when I examine it in hindsight, I get the feeling they didn't want to change a whole lot. They just wanted to do the motions and get back to their status quo in terms of mechanics, to the point we have BAB attack penalty tacked onto their shiny new 3 action system as MAP.
I have heard rumors that PF2 started due to the desire of Paizo higher-ups to basically get PF1 CRB again, but balanced in a way that would make it easy to DM and impossible or almost impossible to cheese or break in any significant way. Not sure how much substance is behind that, but it certainly fits the end result.


I personally think that PF1 is the better incarnation, even first party only. That is to no small part because of all the new 6/9 casters that for me hit a sweet spot in power/versatility/theme. I am not sure why 3.x basically stopped after the bard here. The heavy reliance on archetypes as alternative to multiclassing (which kills your higher class abilities) was nice as well. As were the sorely needed unchained updates to certain classes.

But nothing i can play in PF2 feels even remotely like a PF1 6/9 caster. It is all one-trick-ponies.

1PP-only, PF1 loses a lot of what made 3.5 attractive to me - namely, classes that don't rely on magic to be cool. Sure, I do consider that Paizo probably has done their best work making Magus, Alchemist and Bloodrager, but none of these are particularly stand-out design-wise. Just decent partial casters with niches previously done in a more complex manner (Duskblade, Runescarred Berserker). Archetypes are nice, although I do prefer prestige classes for the actual feel of it.

I certainly do agree on PF2 being full of one-trick ponies. Paizo is seemingly stuck at the idea that fitting into a single niche like "single-target DPR" or "buff dispenser" should cover about 80% of your character power budget.

stoutstien
2023-01-29, 07:45 AM
Thanks. I will likely never touch it. Ridiculous amounts of feat chains just to keep your choice relevant was my least favorite thing about 3.5e (also unnecessary skill maths, though at least that was much more satisfying).

Give worlds without numbers a read. I've found it balances feats, class, and interactions with the world options well enough for a starting point.
It's not balanced in the sense of modern game play compared to the world but all the player options are within reason of each other.

It actively promotes specialist but only to a point then it becomes very expensive to continually investment compared to a more diversified approach. Quite a eloquent way to support archetypes and class identity but not roles and action focus.

Witty Username
2023-01-30, 01:04 AM
I've been reading Five Torches Deep this week, take a look at that?

Honestly, even if your not looking for a new system Five Torches is worth a look, I have been swiping stuff from it for 5e for a bit now (mostly dungeon and encounter stuff)

Kurald Galain
2023-01-30, 11:51 AM
I have heard rumors that PF2 started due to the desire of Paizo higher-ups to basically get PF1 CRB again, but balanced in a way that would make it easy to DM and impossible or almost impossible to cheese or break in any significant way. Not sure how much substance is behind that, but it certainly fits the end result.
As far as I can tell, this is just an internet rumor; I've been very active with PF1 and have seen literally zero indication that DMs were complaining that PF1 is so hard to DM, or that adventure writers were complaining it's so hard to write adventures for (and Paizo has written a ton of PF1 adventures).

So yeah, most likely a case of "designers gonna design" and this rumor is only a justification-after-the-fact from the internet. That said, you are quite correct that it fits the end result.

Luccan
2023-01-30, 11:57 AM
So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

I haven't seen that, I've seen the opposite mostly, but I can imagine why. A lot of people picking up or championing Pathfinder recently seemed to imply it's different than D&D and that's just not the case. Pathfinder is D&D by a different name. Specifically 3.5, which some deride as too crunchy. And on the other hand given many people want D&D players to play or be open to other games, I could see a kind of pushback to essentially saying "upset with the D&D company? Here's D&D from a different company!"

Snowbluff
2023-01-30, 01:38 PM
1PP-only, PF1 loses a lot of what made 3.5 attractive to me - namely, classes that don't rely on magic to be cool. Sure, I do consider that Paizo probably has done their best work making Magus, Alchemist and Bloodrager, but none of these are particularly stand-out design-wise. Just decent partial casters with niches previously done in a more complex manner (Duskblade, Runescarred Berserker). Archetypes are nice, although I do prefer prestige classes for the actual feel of it.

I certainly do agree on PF2 being full of one-trick ponies. Paizo is seemingly stuck at the idea that fitting into a single niche like "single-target DPR" or "buff dispenser" should cover about 80% of your character power budget.
Indeed, but archetypes aren't even a PF1 thing. It's just a rebranding of alternate class features that 3.5 has.

As far as I can tell, this is just an internet rumor; I've been very active with PF1 and have seen literally zero indication that DMs were complaining that PF1 is so hard to DM, or that adventure writers were complaining it's so hard to write adventures for (and Paizo has written a ton of PF1 adventures).

So yeah, most likely a case of "designers gonna design" and this rumor is only a justification-after-the-fact from the internet. That said, you are quite correct that it fits the end result.

I've gotten the impression some of the changes were for PFS, but that's probably just a rumor. I've heard it said at times that Paizo doesn't want to foster an optimizer community as well. "Designers gonna design" does sound right, kinda like when an application receives a lot of changes for seemingly no reason, removing important options while nesting others in new menus that weren't needed, etc. :smalltongue:

warty goblin
2023-01-30, 01:50 PM
I've gotten the impression some of the changes were for PFS, but that's probably just a rumor. I've heard it said at times that Paizo doesn't want to foster an optimizer community as well. "Designers gonna design" does sound right, kinda like when an application receives a lot of changes for seemingly no reason, removing important options while nesting others in new menus that weren't needed, etc. :smalltongue:

They may also have, after years of people whinging about balance, reached the truly bizarre conclusion that people want balance.

kyoryu
2023-01-30, 01:58 PM
So I've seen a number of posts about the OGL and whatnot, and a recurring joke ive seen a lot was in the line of "you don't have to pick up Pathfinder if you stop 5e".

Seems theres a lot of pushback against Pathfinder by certain members of the Community. Being mostly outside of the community and its culture (this forum is probably my biggest interaction), maybe someone can explain to me why some people have some reflexive reaction to the idea of having to learn Pathfinder. Is it a meme?

I'm not "triggered" by it.

I don't like it. It's a great game for a lot of people, but not for me. (1e. I'm kinda curious about 2e). Pathfinder (like D&D 3.x) does a very good job at doing a lot of the things that I don't really care about in roleplaying games. Other people do care about those things, and so I'm glad it exists for them.

There are other games that are good.

It shouldn't be seen as the default option to 5e.

Satinavian
2023-01-30, 02:02 PM
Indeed, but archetypes aren't even a PF1 thing. It's just a rebranding of alternate class features that 3.5 has.
True. But it is how they are used.

3.5 had a ridiculous amount of prestige classes, most of them utterly forgettible, also generally accessible rather late and often laden with prerequisites that made you plan your whole build in advance. Pathfinder hardly used prestige classes but heavily leaned on archetypes instead. In addition it introduced lots of archetypes that worked as proper alternative to multiclassing, swapping a signiture ability for another (like vivisectionist or mutation warrior). It still retained regular multiclassing so you could build lots of fun combinations that were online before level 10.

Kurald Galain
2023-01-30, 02:21 PM
They may also have, after years of people whinging about balance, reached the truly bizarre conclusion that people want balance.
Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

...and the irony is that the clearly-less-balanced 5E thoroughly eclipses PF2 in popularity, just like how the less-balanced PF1 eclipsed 4E.

So still a case of "designers gonna design". Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-01-30, 02:36 PM
Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

Or even if most players want it, that they agree on how they want it. Or what they're willing to sacrifice to get it. A common issue (not just in game design) is that people are really good at pointing out problems, but really crappy at actually pointing to the correct solution. If there even is an unambiguous "correct" solution. Which there frequently isn't--you can't please everyone when they have mutually-incompatible desires.

In this case, I'd personally prefer a bit more balance than 5e has. But what I mean by that is specifically that the wizard class is crappily designed and has no thematics and all the broken spells. I'm fine with, say, sorcerers (generally). And I want stronger thematics as a core part of that. 4e-style mechanical, top-down, balance-at-any-cost doesn't interest me. And I'm not willing to give up a free-flowing, rules-lighter, lower-crunch (both terms relative, not absolute) game to get better balance.

And as a DM I like the "ok DM, this one's up to you" approach to the DM side. I don't want rules and regulations and crunch for everything.

I'd prefer just taking a scalpel to the few spells that cause issues, cutting back the wizard list so that there's room to actually have some kind of unifying mechanic/thematic that isn't just "I have all the spells and cast them better than anyone". Spells-as-primary-class-features sucks IMO.

Instead, PF2e went full in on the "doing point-buy, but only sorta, and mostly falsely" form of balance. Lots of options, most of which are either false choices (you'd never want them for 90% of builds and that's obvious) or just plain don't do much. And a very heavy focus on crunch.

warty goblin
2023-01-30, 02:48 PM
Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

...and the irony is that the clearly-less-balanced 5E thoroughly eclipses PF2 in popularity, just like how the less-balanced PF1 eclipsed 4E.

So still a case of "designers gonna design". Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

I think the general lesson is most people who play RPGs just wanna hang with some buds, eat pretzels and pretend to stab orcs in a reasonably familiar, not too taxing ruleset. The important thing is that the ruleset is just the reagent to the good bits - friends, pretzels, fantasy adventure nonsense - and are therefore mostly important by being unobtrusive. Gratuitous imbalance is a problem, but that's a low bar, particularly when playing with socially functional adults who aren't minmaxing for every bit of power possible because that's not actually the point of the game for them.

But for a lot of the hard-core subset who go online to talk about them, the rules become an end even of themselves. So on the one hand balance becomes super important to this group, because number one, it's something to talk about endlessly, and number two, it's a clear way to compare and contrast different rules in the futile, never ending quest for that perfect RPG. But because the rules, and mastery of the rules is now the end goal, balance is paradoxically also a bad thing because it undermines the expression of rules mastery inherent in breaking the game. A balanced game can't be optimized, therefore there's no reason to get invested in those rules, and by fixing one flaw the game paradoxically becomes worse.

Pathfinder 1E got big because 4E was unfamiliar and very formal in its rules, which is bad for the orc and potato chip ordinary player, and also balanced so bad for the rules aficionados. Pathfinder by contract might be a bit complex but coming off of 3 5 was very familiar, while also being fantastic for the rules gearheads because, well, just look at all that stuff to play with. But 5E did an end run around Pathfinder 1E by being familiar, but less complex, more casual in its rulings not rules philosophy and de-emphasizing rules mastery. So if you're the sort of player who doesn't care about rules even of themselves, 5E is much better than Pathfinder because it cuts straight to letting you stab orcs.

Pathfinder 2E is very invested in rules for the sake of rules. My recollection of reading the rulebook is that it was like 5 pages of general rules, and a couple hundred of abilities and spells and feats, so in effect the only way to do anything more complex than walking across the room was to take a class and buy an ability that turned on some rule snippet for your character. So that right there makes it less appealing than 5E for a pretzel and adventure player. But it is also very restrictive, with tight, balanced math, the thing the gearheads say they want but never seem to actually like. Which leaves it in the unenviable position of being a gearhead game without much reward for nerding out over it.

Snowbluff
2023-01-30, 02:52 PM
True. But it is how they are used.

3.5 had a ridiculous amount of prestige classes, most of them utterly forgettible, also generally accessible rather late and often laden with prerequisites that made you plan your whole build in advance. Pathfinder hardly used prestige classes but heavily leaned on archetypes instead. In addition it introduced lots of archetypes that worked as proper alternative to multiclassing, swapping a signiture ability for another (like vivisectionist or mutation warrior). It still retained regular multiclassing so you could build lots of fun combinations that were online before level 10.
I get where you're coming from, but there are ACFs in 3.5 that are literally ability swaps between classes.

Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

...and the irony is that the clearly-less-balanced 5E thoroughly eclipses PF2 in popularity, just like how the less-balanced PF1 eclipsed 4E.

So still a case of "designers gonna design". Just because a vocal group of people whinge about something doesn't mean most players actually want it.

If only there was some kind of axiom that would have predicted this. :smalltongue:

All kidding aside, I do think there is something to this. I think there may have been an issue at some point where game balance was considered over expression. The result is something where people aren't able to work creatively, for better or worse, to their taste.

I've never played a well balanced system, or at least, a system that doesn't fail to meet the standards of people who complain (the term I'll use since I don't want to besmirch anyone who is genuinely distressed) about balance. I know people like to rag on 5e for having unbalanced casters, but relative to how they worked in 3.5 they are way more in line, but despite this 3.5 is my favorite because there's a lot more varied content. Not that 5e isn't great (it's fantastics and I would gladly smash it into 3.5 for a frankenstein system), but my enjoyment does seem to be inversely proportional to balancing at times.



And as a DM I like the "ok DM, this one's up to you" approach to the DM side. I don't want rules and regulations and crunch for everything.


I want to point out that this is something I've noticed as well. I've played a lot of games whose rules are more oriented towards social encounters (Masks comes to mind), and I definitely feel more constricted in how I roleplay when there's more mechanical consequences in this situation.

Rynjin
2023-01-30, 03:40 PM
Well, yes; that was the goal of 4E, after all, and PF2 and 4E share several of the same game designers...

And, notably, Mark Seifter was a major figure in PF2's development.

Love the guy as a person, he's great. As a designer he has a lot of cool ideas that he feels the need to shackle as hard as humanly possible with pure mathematics, and it makes a lot of the stuff he designs feel very stifled and almost sterile. See: PF1 Kineticist as the first indicator of this issue.

Segev
2023-01-30, 03:56 PM
Indeed, but archetypes aren't even a PF1 thing. It's just a rebranding of alternate class features that 3.5 has.

Sort of. Archetypes are rooted in the same principle: that you can trade out one feature for another of hopefully-equal value for better flavor and customization. However, archetypes both come with a bigger limitation, and got expanded to do more ambitious things.

The limitation is that archetypes are all-or-nothing. You take the archetype if you want it, but you must take EVERY feature of the archetype, and may not keep any of the features it trades in for in lieu of features from the archetype you like less. Some of the archetypes seem balanced around this to an extent, trading weaker features for stronger ones at one level, only to trade stronger ones for weaker ones at another. Sometimes they get this balance wrong, and an archetype is just stronger or just weaker, but they do seem to try.

The expansion into more ambitious areas is that archetypes are often used to "hybridize" classes, almost as a substitute for multiclassing. Where 3.5's alternate class features were all on-theme for the class they were trading into, some archetypes can be stripped-down versions of an entire different class, redesigned a bit to synergize better with the base class whose features the archetype is replacing. One vigilante archetype swaps in a bunch of summoner spellcasting and a mutable familiar with some unique modifications to the vigilante's core tools to make a Magical Girl class out of it. (This one is sadly not well done, mechanically, but is an interesting example of attempting to use archetypes to make a whole new theme to a class.)

Ignimortis
2023-01-31, 05:26 AM
They may also have, after years of people whinging about balance, reached the truly bizarre conclusion that people want balance.
There's balance and then there's balance. The general issue with balancing is that everyone's first thought when it comes to "easy ways to balance" is "make everyone play the same", and the second thought is "what you can't homogenize, just tune to the general lowest performer". PF2 is balanced around Fighter. Fighter is incredibly good in PF2, numerically, because it is now a numbers game most and foremost, and Fighter has the numbers, while not losing out on anything else most of the time.

I find that designers like to balance to the previous floor rather than the previous ceiling or even the midpoint. See: 5e being basically designed around Champion Fighter - you could drop all casters from the game and give the party of all martials a wand of Restoration, and they'd still be able to fight all of the MM properly. PF2 reining in casters so that they're support to the Fighter and an all-martial party is probably more capable than an all-caster party...



3.5 had a ridiculous amount of prestige classes, most of them utterly forgettable, also generally accessible rather late and often laden with prerequisites that made you plan your whole build in advance. Pathfinder hardly used prestige classes but heavily leaned on archetypes instead. In addition it introduced lots of archetypes that worked as proper alternative to multiclassing, swapping a signature ability for another (like vivisectionist or mutation warrior). It still retained regular multiclassing so you could build lots of fun combinations that were online before level 10.

I'd be halfway through or even done with most prestige classes by level 10. The fact that they don't exactly start working before level 5 or 6 is intended. Not all archetypes work straight out of the gate, too.

I think that Prestige Classes should've had a bit more of..."+1 previous class progression" in them, applicable not only to spells, but classes in general. So your Prestige Class still gives you some Fighter features if you levelled into it from Fighter, and if you continue to Fighter, your Fighter level is considered to be, say, Fighter level+(Prestige_Class_X level/2).


Spells-as-primary-class-features sucks IMO.
We have our differences in how we want games to be, but I'd sign this for sure. And add "Especially if it encroaches on other class features, i.e. your non-caster class feature allows you to produce an effect of a spell, verbatim".


And, notably, Mark Seifter was a major figure in PF2's development.

Love the guy as a person, he's great. As a designer he has a lot of cool ideas that he feels the need to shackle as hard as humanly possible with pure mathematics, and it makes a lot of the stuff he designs feel very stifled and almost sterile. See: PF1 Kineticist as the first indicator of this issue.
That...might explain things. IIRC, Seifter left Paizo at some point last year?

animorte
2023-01-31, 06:16 AM
We have our differences in how we want games to be, but I'd sign this for sure. And add "Especially if it encroaches on other class features, i.e. your non-caster class feature allows you to produce an effect of a spell, verbatim".
Agreed, that's annoying. It's one of the reasons I like the design of Channel Divinity. Sure, plenty of them are similar to spells (because there happen to be a kajillion spells), but they each give a description of effects taking place as opposed to, "you cast <insert spell here>."

ahyangyi
2023-01-31, 07:30 AM
I think that Prestige Classes should've had a bit more of..."+1 previous class progression" in them, applicable not only to spells, but classes in general. So your Prestige Class still gives you some Fighter features if you levelled into it from Fighter, and if you continue to Fighter, your Fighter level is considered to be, say, Fighter level+(Prestige_Class_X level/2).


I think that's the reason why Stargazer and Exalted are so loved in Pathfinder 1e. I wish more prestige classes (e.g., Eldritch Knight) worked that way.



The expansion into more ambitious areas is that archetypes are often used to "hybridize" classes, almost as a substitute for multiclassing. Where 3.5's alternate class features were all on-theme for the class they were trading into, some archetypes can be stripped-down versions of an entire different class, redesigned a bit to synergize better with the base class whose features the archetype is replacing. One vigilante archetype swaps in a bunch of summoner spellcasting and a mutable familiar with some unique modifications to the vigilante's core tools to make a Magical Girl class out of it. (This one is sadly not well done, mechanically, but is an interesting example of attempting to use archetypes to make a whole new theme to a class.)

The right way to make Vigilante is the pf2e way: make it into an archetype that everyone can pick, instead of making it a class that can "fake" about 7 other classes.

That said, I do love the hybridize thing. Eldritch Scion was something I wish could happen more in the game.


And, notably, Mark Seifter was a major figure in PF2's development.

Love the guy as a person, he's great. As a designer he has a lot of cool ideas that he feels the need to shackle as hard as humanly possible with pure mathematics, and it makes a lot of the stuff he designs feel very stifled and almost sterile. See: PF1 Kineticist as the first indicator of this issue.

Alas, I think I generally love tight and tactical mechanics. But there is something I never understood: why did the 4e/pf2e designers thought it was good to balance their design around "55% accuracy / hit on a 10"?

It wasn't a tradition (3.5e/pf1 didn't do this). And in many tactical games, the accuracy usually depends on the circumstances (cover), not your "build".

The very thought that you need to devote a large chunk of resources just to hit things 55% of the time is terrible, to be honest.

Ignimortis
2023-01-31, 08:20 AM
Alas, I think I generally love tight and tactical mechanics. But there is something I never understood: why did the 4e/pf2e designers thought it was good to balance their design around "55% accuracy / hit on a 10"?

It wasn't a tradition (3.5e/pf1 didn't do this). And in many tactical games, the accuracy usually depends on the circumstances (cover), not your "build".

The very thought that you need to devote a large chunk of resources just to hit things 55% of the time is terrible, to be honest.

In PF2, getting to hit the average same-level target on an 8 or so is the default (as in, you don't need to invest anything to get there, and, in fact, can't invest anything to go beyond). It wobbles anywhere from 7 to 10 at some points, but that's pretty much the entire range.

As for why they designed it that way, I think at least in part that 1) for PF2, someone was infatuated with the idea of making critical hits be "roll >= AC+10" 2) in general, it makes for very easy forced tactics - hitting on a 8 or a 9 is unacceptable, therefore players WILL play in a way to mitigate the low basic to-hit - flank the target, use buffs/debuffs to improve the odds, etc. In the end, it works, but due to the crit formula and the intended balance, you cannot have "powerful, but imprecise" or "precise, but not very strong" attacks, as precise attacks will crit a ton (and someone WILL abuse that with crit weapons), and imprecise attacks won't be worth it.

Rynjin
2023-01-31, 08:53 AM
There's balance and then there's balance. The general issue with balancing is that everyone's first thought when it comes to "easy ways to balance" is "make everyone play the same", and the second thought is "what you can't homogenize, just tune to the general lowest performer". PF2 is balanced around Fighter. Fighter is incredibly good in PF2, numerically, because it is now a numbers game most and foremost, and Fighter has the numbers, while not losing out on anything else most of the time.

I find that designers like to balance to the previous floor rather than the previous ceiling or even the midpoint. See: 5e being basically designed around Champion Fighter - you could drop all casters from the game and give the party of all martials a wand of Restoration, and they'd still be able to fight all of the MM properly. PF2 reining in casters so that they're support to the Fighter and an all-martial party is probably more capable than an all-caster party...

It's wild, yeah. I made my first "balance is not homogeneity" rant as far back as 2009, on the SPUF forums for Team Fortress 2. It's not a complicated concept and yet some people think it is.



That...might explain things. IIRC, Seifter left Paizo at some point last year?

Basically everyone with any talent or morals has left Paizo for greener pastures, yeah.

Kurald Galain
2023-01-31, 08:57 AM
Alas, I think I generally love tight and tactical mechanics.
Me too; but while I would call 5E and particularly PF2 "tight", I don't think either of them can rightfully be called "tactical". 3E and 4E (and PF1) have a lot of tactical mechanics but aren't particularly "tight".


The very thought that you need to devote a large chunk of resources just to hit things 55% of the time is terrible, to be honest.
I agree. I also like that in 3E/PF, the spread is much larger, so some level-appropriate monsters have a high armor class and on the other hand there's oozes with terribly low AC. So this goes from "hit on a 2+" to "you'd better start flanking and debuffing or else you hit on a 16+". This is more interesting than nailing down every level-appropriate monster between "hit on a 9+" and "hit on an 11+"

Willie the Duck
2023-01-31, 10:03 AM
For a lot of the instances I've seen first hand, it was less of a reflexive trigger against it and more of a snapping point against constantly being pestered to swap out of 5e "because pathfinder's way better".

In as much as anyone is "triggered*" by it, I think it is because such individuals have run into a zealous PF aficionado claiming either that it does everything from play better to wash your car and do your taxes, or that it is just plain 'better' than conversation-pertinent alternative. That's pretty normal for internet conversation (see also: Stars Wars/Trek boosters, Marvel/DC, Consoles/PCs, favorite authors, etc.). I think Pathfinder specifically has picked up some tension and energy associated with the D&D 3e-->4e transition and all the hurt feelings and gnashing of teeth that instigated. Also some general notion that PF is a better game because it isn't produced by WotC/Hasbro (certainly true for the last month or so, but the sentiment existed before then).
*side issue: I wish the colloquial use of this term would just die.

Regarding the game, I'm always at a loss at how people treat it as such a different or unique entity*. I feel like this is true if and only if the scale is defined by D&D alone. Once you measure you crunch on a scale from Fudge or Freeform Universal RPG on one end and Aftermath, Eclipse Phase, GURPS or Hero System (depending on how you define crunch), all the D&Ds and PFs fit into a tiny band of the spectrum. If balance discussions start including RIFTS or the like, again D&D and PF don't seem so far apart. Certainly in terms of character build choice none hold a candle to the generic systems (plus any without levelling, where you automatically gain X alongside your increase in Y). Tactically, there are any number of games with more on-battlefield decisions mattering, sometimes sliding into 'are we sure this is an RPG and not a wargame?' territory. Thus when there are discussions that boil down to 'you should play D&D5/PF2 instead of the other, because the one I prefer is great at _____,' it seems like a non-starter to me, as they both hold very middle-ground positions on any given preference-measure.
*this is true of D&D 4e as well, to be honest, although it is more of a departure than PF or PF2.

kyoryu
2023-01-31, 10:28 AM
Thus when there are discussions that boil down to 'you should play D&D5/PF2 instead of the other, because the one I prefer is great at _____,' it seems like a non-starter to me, as they both hold very middle-ground positions on any given preference-measure.
*this is true of D&D 4e as well, to be honest, although it is more of a departure than PF or PF2.

It's Coke and Pepsi. Sure, they're not the same, but they're both fundamentally cola. And if I don't want cola in general (either at the moment or in general), then it's frustrating at times being told that Pepsi is the only alternative to Coke and vice versa.

Sometimes I want lemonade, or water, or iced tea, or orange soda, or Dr. Pepper.

Psyren
2023-01-31, 11:16 AM
There are definitely things I like about PF2. I was just watching some Nonat1s content and thought "hey, stances giving monk unarmed strikes various weapon properties is a cool idea" and "Mountain Stance can actually make a strength-based monk viable". But it's littered with fiddly modifiers and conditions like backstab and flat-footed and iterative attack penalties that I left behind, and I just find myself much more inclined to take the things I like and implement them in 5e/1DnD in some way rather than dive into PF2 itself.

warty goblin
2023-01-31, 12:13 PM
One thing I will absolutely say in PF2's favor is the AP system is much more sensible than the weirdoid hodgepodge D&D had used. Yes they faffed up the movement, but the core concept of do three AP worth of stuff is tight, certainly much more elegant than move/standard vs full but you get a 5 foot step and then there's swift actions whatever they are that 3.5 used. 5E is relatively straight forwards at move/standard/sometimes a bonus, but it's still a bit weird.

It also seems way easier to port over to computer game, at least in terms of interface. I never have the foggiest idea what actions I've used in Wrath of the Righteous in turn based mode. Though Solasta handles its not entirely dissimilar action system with fantastic clarity, so maybe it's more of a deficiency in WoTR's interface than an inherent issue.

Ignimortis
2023-01-31, 12:15 PM
Me too; but while I would call 5E and particularly PF2 "tight", I don't think either of them can rightfully be called "tactical". 3E and 4E (and PF1) have a lot of tactical mechanics but aren't particularly "tight".
Some of the people I've played with do thing that PF2 is tactically tight. I think that having a game with only one right way to play it isn't really tactical.



I agree. I also like that in 3E/PF, the spread is much larger, so some level-appropriate monsters have a high armor class and on the other hand there's oozes with terribly low AC. So this goes from "hit on a 2+" to "you'd better start flanking and debuffing or else you hit on a 16+". This is more interesting than nailing down every level-appropriate monster between "hit on a 9+" and "hit on an 11+"
Me three. 3.5's math is amazing precisely because you can work with values that are massively different and still have a playable game. Neither 5e nor PF2 function well with vast number differences.


There are definitely things I like about PF2. I was just watching some Nonat1s content and thought "hey, stances giving monk unarmed strikes various weapon properties is a cool idea" and "Mountain Stance can actually make a strength-based monk viable". But it's littered with fiddly modifiers and conditions like backstab and flat-footed and iterative attack penalties that I left behind, and I just find myself much more inclined to take the things I like and implement them in 5e/1DnD in some way rather than dive into PF2 itself.
PF2 has quite a few decent ideas that can easily work without PF2's existing core mechanics. And let's just say that some fiddly modifiers aren't bad - PF2 has managed to get them down to a reasonable level, where there aren't more than 2 or 3 in play, usually. If it got rid of the three-action system and the annoying math, it could be quite fun - but that would require redoing half the game to account for that. It's a shame, because the second half certainly has promise.

One thing I will absolutely say in PF2's favor is the AP system is much more sensible than the weirdoid hodgepodge D&D had used. Yes they faffed up the movement, but the core concept of do three AP worth of stuff is tight, certainly much more elegant than move/standard vs full but you get a 5 foot step and then there's swift actions whatever they are that 3.5 used. 5E is relatively straight forwards at move/standard/sometimes a bonus, but it's still a bit weird.

It also seems way easier to port over to computer game, at least in terms of interface. I never have the foggiest idea what actions I've used in Wrath of the Righteous in turn based mode. Though Solasta handles its not entirely dissimilar action system with fantastic clarity, so maybe it's more of a deficiency in WoTR's interface than an inherent issue.
I disagree. PF2's three-action system is actually PF1's action system that lets you trade your standard for two moves - and has an attack cost a move instead of standard. Old standard is now 2-action, old move is now 1-action, old swift/immediate is now a reaction, old full-round is now 3-action. That's about it. Frankly, I like 5e's system (at the core, not how it's used) more - it allows for maximum amount of distinctive actions, as long as some actions are priced with X feet of movement instead of an action/BA/reaction.

It could work if Paizo actually admitted that it's an AP system, and went a bit deeper - say, you could have 5 or 6 AP, with movement and attacking costing different amounts of AP. As it is right now, it's both insanely rigid and contributes to internal action issues (see: reloading crossbows/guns, skill usage being priced the same as movement AND attacking, certain feats being simply worse than their action cost implies, etc). Three AP per turn is too few to make a deep and interesting AP system.

Kane0
2023-01-31, 07:46 PM
There are definitely things I like about PF2. I was just watching some Nonat1s content and thought "hey, stances giving monk unarmed strikes various weapon properties is a cool idea" and "Mountain Stance can actually make a strength-based monk viable". But it's littered with fiddly modifiers and conditions like backstab and flat-footed and iterative attack penalties that I left behind, and I just find myself much more inclined to take the things I like and implement them in 5e/1DnD in some way rather than dive into PF2 itself.

I think at some point most of the more avid enjoyers of the hobby will end up pinching what they like from whatever they expose themselves to and cobbling together their own ruleset that suits them. Just feels like the natural thing to happen, a steady progression from houserules to homebrew to personal-scale game development.


One thing I will absolutely say in PF2's favor is the AP system is much more sensible than the weirdoid hodgepodge D&D had used. Yes they faffed up the movement, but the core concept of do three AP worth of stuff is tight, certainly much more elegant than move/standard vs full but you get a 5 foot step and then there's swift actions whatever they are that 3.5 used. 5E is relatively straight forwards at move/standard/sometimes a bonus, but it's still a bit weird.


(Primary) Action
Bonus (secondary) Action
Movement
Interaction
Reaction

WotC just really didn't do a good job communicating it, much like how they did a poor job with their spells-per-turn restriction.

animorte
2023-01-31, 08:20 PM
Just feels like the natural thing to happen, a steady progression from houserules to homebrew to personal-scale game development.
Hey, that's the goal! I'm just gonna need some more hands.

Mordante
2023-02-01, 06:13 AM
I have only ever played 3.5. I Feel no need to switch to PF2 or 5e. To me they sound more or less all the same as 3.5

If I would switch I would go to a system that ditches levels and maybe even hit points. If you want to hit someone in close combat it should be skill test your weapons skill vs their weapon skill and armour is damage reduction.

Hit point increase and levels always feel a bit forced to me.

Cikomyr2
2023-02-01, 11:55 AM
I have only ever played 3.5. I Feel no need to switch to PF2 or 5e. To me they sound more or less all the same as 3.5

If I would switch I would go to a system that ditches levels and maybe even hit points. If you want to hit someone in close combat it should be skill test your weapons skill vs their weapon skill and armour is damage reduction.

Hit point increase and levels always feel a bit forced to me.

Savage Worlds.

The new fantasy expansions make it really fun

Pex
2023-02-01, 06:18 PM
There are definitely things I like about PF2. I was just watching some Nonat1s content and thought "hey, stances giving monk unarmed strikes various weapon properties is a cool idea" and "Mountain Stance can actually make a strength-based monk viable". But it's littered with fiddly modifiers and conditions like backstab and flat-footed and iterative attack penalties that I left behind, and I just find myself much more inclined to take the things I like and implement them in 5e/1DnD in some way rather than dive into PF2 itself.

Legacy from Pathfinder 1E/3E D&D. By making a new system they didn't want to/couldn't veer off too far from what was. That was a major mistake of 4E. They wanted familiarity. It could also be doubling down on the game math finding fiddly bits to be a feature rather than bug. If anything the multi-attack penalty encourages warriors to use abilities that cost two actions since there wouldn't be an attack penalty or use the one action buff/set up actions that improve or tag on a rider effect to their next attack.

A main complaint of 3E was warriors had to do full attacks for comparable damage. In Pathfinder 2E you may not be doing all attacks you could have possibly done, but on the attacks you are doing it's worth doing either for equivalent damage and/or utilizing a tactic to make that combat round or the next combat round easier for you in some way. That's where the fiddly bits come in. You know if they opted for Advantage/Disadvantage system just using different words they would be yelled at for ripping off 5E, so unless there's some brilliant mechanic yet to be discovered keeping the fiddly bits was their only option of which they had experience.

That doesn't mean you're wrong not to like the fiddly bits. That's personal taste, but my point is Pathfinder is also not wrong for keeping them for their 2E.

Kane0
2023-02-01, 10:34 PM
You know if they opted for Advantage/Disadvantage system just using different words they would be yelled at for ripping off 5E, so unless there's some brilliant mechanic yet to be discovered keeping the fiddly bits was their only option of which they had experience.

That doesn't mean you're wrong not to like the fiddly bits. That's personal taste, but my point is Pathfinder is also not wrong for keeping them for their 2E.

Ooh, instead of a static number have it be a die that scales. You could call it the circumstance die.

So instead of 5e's Advantage or PF's +2 , you have a +1d4 Circumstance die you add to your roll. If you have multiple instances they stack by increasing the size of the die up to a max of +1d12. If you have penalties the same thing happens in reverse, reducing your circumstance bonus die or turning it into a circumstance penalty die.
It's not as simple as roll-twice-take-best/worst, but also not as crunchy as adding up all the numbers (with a little bit of diminishing returns and a built-in ceiling/floor) plus has the benefit of being able to just leave the correct die sitting in front of you to remind you what you have (can color code them even, because players love collecting dice).

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-01, 10:42 PM
Ooh, instead of a static number have it be a die that scales. You could call it the circumstance die.

So instead of 5e's Advantage or PF's +2 , you have a +1d4 Circumstance die you add to your roll. If you have multiple instances they stack by increasing the size of the die up to a max of +1d12. If you have penalties the same thing happens in reverse, reducing your circumstance bonus die or turning it into a circumstance penalty die.
It's not as simple as roll-twice-take-best/worst, but also not as crunchy as adding up all the numbers (with a little bit of diminishing returns and a built-in ceiling/floor) plus has the benefit of being able to just leave the correct die sitting in front of you to remind you what you have (can color code them even, because players love collecting dice).

I actually started a system designed around exactly that (called "boost/bane" dies instead). But since my homebrew collection is littered with half-finished systems and content...

Kane0
2023-02-01, 11:22 PM
I actually started a system designed around exactly that (called "boost/bane" dies instead). But since my homebrew collection is littered with half-finished systems and content...

To be fair, I'm led to believe that Shadow of the Demon Lord uses basically the same mechanic, just locked to d6 and adding more-taking-best/worst. So not revolutionary, but not much is when it comes to dice & imagination games.

warty goblin
2023-02-01, 11:42 PM
To be fair, I'm led to believe that Shadow of the Demon Lord uses basically the same mechanic, just locked to d6 and adding more-taking-best/worst. So not revolutionary, but not much is when it comes to dice & imagination games.

It does. Mathematically there's a couple nice things about this version of the system:
1) It has diminishing returns. Having one Boon is good, two is better, but because only the maximum counts, it just isn't worth doing ridiculous things to chase up more Boons after a while, and you can't break the math by doing it.
2) It increases consistency as you get more Boons. So while your maximum benefit is still capped, you can depend on getting that much more readily. I like that, a d12 bonus can be great, but it's really swingy 3d6b1 is really not swingy when compared to 1d6.
3) Less a math thing, more a memory thing, but it's dirt easy to deal with because all you need is a good stack of d6 dice and some very small addition/subtraction problems.

Kane0
2023-02-02, 12:28 AM
Also d6 is the most common die.

Pex
2023-02-02, 12:50 AM
Ooh, instead of a static number have it be a die that scales. You could call it the circumstance die.

So instead of 5e's Advantage or PF's +2 , you have a +1d4 Circumstance die you add to your roll. If you have multiple instances they stack by increasing the size of the die up to a max of +1d12. If you have penalties the same thing happens in reverse, reducing your circumstance bonus die or turning it into a circumstance penalty die.
It's not as simple as roll-twice-take-best/worst, but also not as crunchy as adding up all the numbers (with a little bit of diminishing returns and a built-in ceiling/floor) plus has the benefit of being able to just leave the correct die sitting in front of you to remind you what you have (can color code them even, because players love collecting dice).

Sounds like the Psionic Die that was rejected for 5E. It was not universally hated, and I think the main problem the 5E community beyond the Forum had was adding a new game mechanic to 5E rather than the game mechanic itself. It's still fiddly but probably easier to remember to use them because players like rolling clickety-clack math rocks.

Kurald Galain
2023-02-02, 02:31 AM
So instead of 5e's Advantage or PF's +2 , you have a +1d4 Circumstance die you add to your roll. If you have multiple instances they stack by increasing the size of the die up to a max of +1d12.

TSR's old "D&D in space" game, Alternity, did something like that. The main disadvantage is that it resolves rather slowly at the game table, because people have to remember which die to roll this time (and find the darn thing).

That, and the first bonus is +2.5 and all subsequent bonuses are +1 (so largely irrelevant).

It does fit right in with PF2's philosophy, but really not with 5E's.

lesser_minion
2023-02-02, 03:39 AM
That's where the fiddly bits come in. You know if they opted for Advantage/Disadvantage system just using different words they would be yelled at for ripping off 5E, so unless there's some brilliant mechanic yet to be discovered keeping the fiddly bits was their only option of which they had experience.

Isn't awarding large numbers of +2s and -2s literally given in the 3e DMG as an example of what not to do? I always thought that complaints about "fiddly maths" were to do with mostly-static things like adding up your AC.

Zombimode
2023-02-02, 03:43 AM
Isn't awarding large numbers of +2s and -2s literally given in the 3e DMG as an example of what not to do? I always thought that complaints about "fiddly maths" were to do with mostly-static things like adding up your AC.

Yeah. In many cases complains about "fiddly math" are coming from people not bothering to add their modifiers beforehand.

warty goblin
2023-02-02, 07:13 AM
Isn't awarding large numbers of +2s and -2s literally given in the 3e DMG as an example of what not to do? I always thought that complaints about "fiddly maths" were to do with mostly-static things like adding up your AC.

As I recall, they were talking about not adding lots of DM- adjudicated circumstance modifiers, and to just keep that simple. And that generally is pretty simple, make a strength check to move the rock, you get +2 for using a lever. Nobody's getting tripped up there.

It's the system adjudicated bonuses that I suspect trip people up, because there's a lot of them, a lot of sources of them, and which ones apply can change all the time. Also I rather suspect that 3.5 at launch (and probably the way people played and understood it at launch) had a lot less of these than it did a couple years down the road.

Segev
2023-02-02, 10:08 AM
Sounds like the Psionic Die that was rejected for 5E. It was not universally hated, and I think the main problem the 5E community beyond the Forum had was adding a new game mechanic to 5E rather than the game mechanic itself. It's still fiddly but probably easier to remember to use them because players like rolling clickety-clack math rocks.

Eh, the "psionic die" (which I actually liked, though felt needed a tweak) grew and shrank depending on what you rolled on it when you used it, not based on stacking boons and banes.

Psyren
2023-02-02, 11:52 AM
Legacy from Pathfinder 1E/3E D&D. By making a new system they didn't want to/couldn't veer off too far from what was. That was a major mistake of 4E. They wanted familiarity. It could also be doubling down on the game math finding fiddly bits to be a feature rather than bug. If anything the multi-attack penalty encourages warriors to use abilities that cost two actions since there wouldn't be an attack penalty or use the one action buff/set up actions that improve or tag on a rider effect to their next attack.

A main complaint of 3E was warriors had to do full attacks for comparable damage. In Pathfinder 2E you may not be doing all attacks you could have possibly done, but on the attacks you are doing it's worth doing either for equivalent damage and/or utilizing a tactic to make that combat round or the next combat round easier for you in some way. That's where the fiddly bits come in. You know if they opted for Advantage/Disadvantage system just using different words they would be yelled at for ripping off 5E, so unless there's some brilliant mechanic yet to be discovered keeping the fiddly bits was their only option of which they had experience.

That doesn't mean you're wrong not to like the fiddly bits. That's personal taste, but my point is Pathfinder is also not wrong for keeping them for their 2E.

I know, I never said PF2 was wrong. I was explaining why, even now, I consider 5e to be the better system (for me) in play. Knowing that all my attacks in a turn have the same calculation no matter how many I get is much easier to grok. Knowing that I don't have to worry about flat-footed+sickened 1+frightened 2+backswing etc is nice too.

Segev
2023-02-02, 12:36 PM
I know, I never said PF2 was wrong. I was explaining why, even now, I consider 5e to be the better system (for me) in play. Knowing that all my attacks in a turn have the same calculation no matter how many I get is much easier to grok. Knowing that I don't have to worry about flat-footed+sickened 1+frightened 2+backswing etc is nice too.

I am also a huge fan of not needing Spring Attack to be able to move, act, and move again. I don't know if PF2 allows that, but I don't THINK it does.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 12:37 PM
It does. PF2 uses the 3 action system first introduced in Pathfinder Unchained. So you can use one action to move, one to attack, and one to move again if you want.

Ignimortis
2023-02-02, 12:41 PM
It does. PF2 uses the 3 action system first introduced in Pathfinder Unchained. So you can use one action to move, one to attack, and one to move again if you want.

Ah, but you can't break up actions with other actions. So you can't move-attack-move for two actions, as it would've worked in 5e.

Segev
2023-02-02, 12:59 PM
Yeah, what I like in 5e is that you don't have a "move action." You just have a certain amount of movement, and you can expend it at any point during and throughout your turn. Do you have Extra Attack and a pair of light weapons? You can move ten feet up to attack somebody, and, if you drop them, move another ten feet over to a second somebody to use your extra attack, and, if you drop THEM, move to a third somebody another 10 feet away and attack them with your off-hand attack. All with 30 feet of movement, an action (for attacking and extra attacking), and a bonus action (for the off-hand attack).

Willie the Duck
2023-02-02, 01:09 PM
Yeah. In many cases complains about "fiddly math" are coming from people not bothering to add their modifiers beforehand.

Or getting hit by a Dex drain and having 3-4 different downstream numbers changing.
Or trying to hit a flat-footed monk with a brilliant energy longsword one turn and a ghost with a touch attack effect the next and yes not having each of those contingencies pre-calculated.

There were numbers, lots of them, with lots of different niche situations where only some of the numbers applied. Individually certainly not hard. In total, certainly something many people didn't find enjoyable.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 01:28 PM
Or getting hit by a Dex drain and having 3-4 different downstream numbers changing.

It's the same penalty to all of them, so not sure what the issue is. Like yeah your AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and Initiative get nerfed...but they're all by like -2 uniformly.


Or trying to hit a flat-footed monk with a brilliant energy longsword one turn and a ghost with a touch attack effect the next and yes not having each of those contingencies pre-calculated.

...Neither of these things matters. Brilliant Energy doesn't affect Monks at all so no recalculation is needed. Ghosts have identical regular AC and Touch AC values. No math needed.


There were numbers, lots of them, with lots of different niche situations where only some of the numbers applied. Individually certainly not hard. In total, certainly something many people didn't find enjoyable.

I feel like if the problems you mentioned are the kind of things people had issue with, that means they were deliberately overcomplicating the actual problem.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-02, 01:47 PM
Or getting hit by a Dex drain and having 3-4 different downstream numbers changing.
Or trying to hit a flat-footed monk with a brilliant energy longsword one turn and a ghost with a touch attack effect the next and yes not having each of those contingencies pre-calculated.

There were numbers, lots of them, with lots of different niche situations where only some of the numbers applied. Individually certainly not hard. In total, certainly something many people didn't find enjoyable.

Or situational modifiers--this feat adds +2, but only in these circumstances, and doesn't stack with X spell, which has a round-based duration, plus under those circumstances the DC is X and under these it's Y, except when it uses an entirely different stat....

If I need a dynamic flowchart to run combat, no thanks. If most of the game involves hunting down and tracking all the various number boosts I need to do my job, no thanks. I don't play EVE Online for the same reason--piloting a spreadsheet simulator just isn't fun. I shouldn't need a dynamic character sheet to play effectively.

For me, ideally all numerical bonuses would be either static or only change on level up. Anything else should get lumped into Advantage/Disadvantage or some other single, non-numeric or at least non-stacking track.

Willie the Duck
2023-02-02, 02:15 PM
It's the same penalty to all of them, so not sure what the issue is. Like yeah your AC, Reflex saves, ranged attack rolls, and Initiative get nerfed...but they're all by like -2 uniformly.
-2 or -3 depending on whether your it drains your dex to an even or odd number.

...Neither of these things matters. Brilliant Energy doesn't affect Monks at all so no recalculation is needed. Ghosts have identical regular AC and Touch AC values. No math needed.
I did not put much time into thinking these specific examples, so this isn't surprising. Still, brilliant energy toggles whether physical armor matters. Flat footed toggles Dex and dodge-based ACs. Touch toggles armor and NA and a few other things. Combining the situations means more numbers to have pre-calculated (or not, and which case that's 'people not bothering to add their modifiers beforehand,' apparently).

I feel like if the problems you mentioned are the kind of things people had issue with, that means they were deliberately overcomplicating the actual problem.Neither you nor I get a vote in whether others found these issues to be a bridge too far, nor does it matter if you or I feel that the complaints are legitimate. They are, for the most part, people not around such that we can make this case. Some number of people tried their hand at gaming with 3e or PF and either are now playing 5e and having more fun doing that or equally likely now playing Pandemic or Canasta in their spare time.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 02:25 PM
-2 or -3 depending on whether your it drains your dex to an even or odd number.

Or -1, or -5...the point is that the number is the same across the board.



Neither you nor I get a vote in whether others found these issues to be a bridge too far, nor does it matter if you or I feel that the complaints are legitimate. They are, for the most part, people not around such that we can make this case. Some number of people tried their hand at gaming with 3e or PF and either are now playing 5e and having more fun doing that or equally likely now playing Pandemic or Canasta in their spare time.

IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

KorvinStarmast
2023-02-02, 02:26 PM
It's Coke and Pepsi. Sure, they're not the same, but they're both fundamentally cola. And if I don't want cola in general (either at the moment or in general), then it's frustrating at times being told that Pepsi is the only alternative to Coke and vice versa.

Sometimes I want lemonade, or water, or iced tea, or orange soda, or Dr. Pepper. Or beer. :smallsmile:

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-02, 02:37 PM
IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

Disagree. I strongly disliked Pathfinder because of all the pointless number juggling. Yet have no issues with 5e and have DM'd and played it for decades at this point.

PF1e is especially rife with subtle numbers issues. PF2e has fewer and most are pushed to build time.

Both force you to think in a build-centric way, with lots of attention to "operating the mechanics" rather than playing the game. Heavy emphasis on the Game UI layer, with very little concern toward the underlying fiction. In fact, the fiction ends up getting hammered into the mold forced by the mechanical superstructure, rather than the mechanics being a way to express the underlying fiction.

kyoryu
2023-02-02, 02:40 PM
Or beer. :smallsmile:

Beer and whiskey are assumed.



IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

I know a lot of people that prefer 5e to 3.5e/PF1e.

I don't think that framing preferences as a personality flaw is really good for conversations.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 02:46 PM
Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-02, 02:49 PM
Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

Note: what you're doing here is basically calling people stupid for not having the same preferences as you do. That's not very nice.

"Simple addition and subtraction" isn't the actual issue. It's that you have to do it conditionally, on a turn-by-turn basis, with an enormous range of things that could impose stacking penalties and bonuses. Sometimes. Under certain circumstances. There's an enormous difference between

* All the important +X/-Y are written on your character sheet and only change at level up (if even then).
* Some modifiers can be written down in advance. Others may be attached to buffs, debuffs, conditions, feats (conditional on a bunch of other things), items, etc. All of which come and go at different rates under different circumstances. Then there are all the interaction terms--this buff counters that debuff, except when...

JNAProductions
2023-02-02, 02:50 PM
Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

Do you honestly think 3.5 is just as easy to learn as 5E?

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 02:53 PM
Do you honestly think 3.5 is just as easy to learn as 5E?

Genuinely, yes. Core to core anyway.

The main difference and hurdle in learning the system is the amount of options bloat that occurred in 3.5 and Pathfinder over their spans.

5e is REALLY not that different as a baseline system.

JNAProductions
2023-02-02, 02:56 PM
Genuinely, yes. Core to core anyway.

The main difference and hurdle in learning the system is the amount of options bloat that occurred in 3.5 and Pathfinder over their spans.

I strenuously disagree, if you want to have a group that works well together.

3.5 is full of trap options. On one hand, you have a Druid who takes Natural Spell. On the other hand, you have a Monk who takes Toughness and Diehard. Both are thematic choices-a Druid who prefers animal forms to their own, and a Monk who's hard to kill.
One of those builds can go to 20 and be fine, against reasonable CR foes.
One of those builds won't do nearly as well.

Even ignoring character-building, as Phoenix mentioned, there's a hell of a lot more conditional things-all of which add to mental overhead.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 02:58 PM
All of that is detail, more than anything. There are plenty of "trap" options in 5e as well, it's just that the highs are lower and lows don't stick out as much.

And it doesn't really reflect the baseline of learning the system either.

JNAProductions
2023-02-02, 03:04 PM
All of that is detail, more than anything. There are plenty of "trap" options in 5e as well, it's just that the highs are lower and lows don't stick out as much.

And it doesn't really reflect the baseline of learning the system either.

A badly built PC in 5E is not as good as a highly-optimized one. Outside of a few specific tricks (such as Wish-Sim chaining, available at 17th level or higher only) you can put a weak PC of level X in 5E next to a strong PC of level X and they'll both contribute just fine.
A switch-hitter Champion Fighter who took the Defensive style, never switched it, and evenly spread their ASIs between Strength and Dexterity is not as good as a focused build. But they can adventure alongside a Sharpshooter Samurai and still contribute just fine.
In 3.5, a poorly built Monk will start being outclassed by a Druid's animal companion pretty early on. Not even the Druid-specifically their companion. A single class feature.

Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

LibraryOgre
2023-02-02, 03:09 PM
Preferring one game or another is fine. Claiming one is "too hard to learn" when all it asks of you is to do some simple addition and subtraction is...suspect.

I've been hearing that about ThAC0 for decades, now.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-02, 03:10 PM
A badly built PC in 5E is not as good as a highly-optimized one. Outside of a few specific tricks (such as Wish-Sim chaining, available at 17th level or higher only) you can put a weak PC of level X in 5E next to a strong PC of level X and they'll both contribute just fine.
A switch-hitter Champion Fighter who took the Defensive style, never switched it, and evenly spread their ASIs between Strength and Dexterity is not as good as a focused build. But they can adventure alongside a Sharpshooter Samurai and still contribute just fine.
In 3.5, a poorly built Monk will start being outclassed by a Druid's animal companion pretty early on. Not even the Druid-specifically their companion. A single class feature.

Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

All of this.

In addition, the presentation of 3e/PF1e is horrible for learning. Stuff is scattered hither and yon, rules contradict, override, and interact with each other in literally insane ways. As evidenced by the interminable arguments on this forum. I remember my PF1e DM having to flip back and forth between 3 different books + an online resource to figure out exactly how a monster worked in one of the well-regarded Paizo adventure paths (Rise of the Runelords). And it still came down to "screw it, it's gonna work this way because it's too much of a mess".

Stat blocks require you to have the entire structure of the game in working memory, while also often being just flat wrong. In meaningful ways. Spells require interpolating lots of run-time variables to even begin to parse, not even counting all the potential interactions. Abilities that do nothing...or shatter the game, placed alongside others.

Amnestic
2023-02-02, 03:30 PM
Not to turn this into an edition war or anything but I am afraid I also have to disagree with the idea that 3.5/PF are equal in "learning required" compared to 5e, both "pre-game" (generating/updating the character) and "in-game" (i.e. turn to turn effects).

Looking at just the character sheets between 3.5/PF and 5e shows that one has a lot more calculations and things to track going into it. Yes, ultimately knowing that how to calculate AC, touch AC, and flat-footed AC aren't all that complex, but it is objectively more to learn and think about both before and during a game than 5e's equivalent. Knowing about all the different non-stacking types of modifiers is extra knowledge, and having to recalculate stuff on the fly is much more prevalent in 3.5/PF than it is on 5e. The notorious grapple mechanics!

My background with D&D was primarily 3.5 - I started with Baldur's Gate, my tabletop foray started and stuck with 3.5, dipped into 4e (it had a lot of good ideas! and some not so good ones!) and then moved onto 5e. I definitely believe, personally, that 3.5/PF require more learning and brainspace to play actively than 5e does.

That in itself is not a comment on its quality - people clearly still love the games, and I myself very much enjoy Owlcat's Kingmaker/WotR games (primarily because all that crunchy calculation is done by a computer for me) - just that one requires more learning and maths to play than the other.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 03:33 PM
Rise of the Runelords is a pretty cherry-picked example IMO because it's a 3.5 adventure that was converted to Pathfinder, of course it's not going to map 1:1. That's not really an issue in Pathfinder-only APs, barring a few notable typos and outright mistakes.

I also feel like you're describing problems that are precisely as much of an issue in 5e. It's not like 5e is a one-page document or something, all the rules are scattered across multiple books as well. You need at minimum the PHB and DMG to run a game and are going to have to flip back and forth between them and jump between hundreds of pages to get the rules you need.

Same as you need the Core Rulebook and...actually that's it to run a game of Pathfinder.


Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

?

I genuinely have no clue what you're trying to say here.

JNAProductions
2023-02-02, 03:33 PM
Not to turn this into an edition war or anything but I am afraid I also have to disagree with the idea that 3.5/PF are equal in "learning required" compared to 5e, both "pre-game" (generating/updating the character) and "in-game" (i.e. turn to turn effects).

Looking at just the character sheets between 3.5/PF and 5e shows that one has a lot more calculations and things to track going into it. Yes, ultimately knowing that how to calculate AC, touch AC, and flat-footed AC aren't all that complex, but it is objectively more to learn and think about both before and during a game than 5e's equivalent. Knowing about all the different non-stacking types of modifiers is extra knowledge, and having to recalculate stuff on the fly is much more prevalent in 3.5/PF than it is on 5e. The notorious grapple mechanics!

My background with D&D was primarily 3.5 - I started with Baldur's Gate, my tabletop foray started and stuck with 3.5, dipped into 4e (it had a lot of good ideas! and some not so good ones!) and then moved onto 5e. I definitely believe, personally, that 3.5/PF require more learning and brainspace to play actively than 5e does.

That in itself is not a comment on its quality - people clearly still love the games, and I myself very much enjoy Owlcat's Kingmaker/WotR games (primarily because all that crunchy calculation is done by a computer for me) - just that one requires more learning and maths to play than the other.

Yeah. I prefer 5E to 3.5 and Pathfinder, since it's much easier to play and run. It has less rules covering everything, and that's okay with me-preferred, even.

Rynjin, you are not wrong to prefer 3.P to 5E. I don't, but these are games we play for fun. If Pathfinder is more fun for you and your table, then have fun! But I think you might overestimate how easy it is to play and learn 3.P, since you're so well-versed in it.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 03:44 PM
Yeah. I prefer 5E to 3.5 and Pathfinder, since it's much easier to play and run. It has less rules covering everything, and that's okay with me-preferred, even.

Rynjin, you are not wrong to prefer 3.P to 5E. I don't, but these are games we play for fun. If Pathfinder is more fun for you and your table, then have fun! But I think you might overestimate how easy it is to play and learn 3.P, since you're so well-versed in it.

It's an admittedly small sample size, but I really have observed a similar level of difficulty in people learning both systems. Pathfinder is what I started with, and I had no real issue transitioning to 5e since the only variation was in the details; you can still Grapple, Trip, and Disarm for instance, but the effects are slightly different.

Similarly, the newer players I've introduced to the hobby have struggled to the same degree when learning both systems, or ANY new system (having also introduced them to Final Fantasy d6 and Savage Worlds, the former of which is infinitely simpler than 5e).

The main difference I've observed is in character creation, not at the table. Pathfinder invokes a lot more options-paralysis than 5e (and FFd6; less than Savage Worlds) due to just having so much more stuff.

I will say partially the disconnect comes from my not considering "flipping through books" to be a valid complaint. There is a very good, official, searchable website with every single piece of mechanical content ever printed for Pathfinder which is something 5e lacks (as a free service available to all players in any case). That's a resource any player and GM should be availing themselves of instead of flipping through 9 different books worth of content.

Having to go back to flipping through books (well, PDFs) in 5e was the biggest hurdle I actually had to learning THAT system.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-02, 03:52 PM
It's an admittedly small sample size, but I really have observed a similar level of difficulty in people learning both systems. Pathfinder is what I started with, and I had no real issue transitioning to 5e since the only variation was in the details; you can still Grapple, Trip, and Disarm for instance, but the effects are slightly different.

Similarly, the newer players I've introduced to the hobby have struggled to the same degree when learning both systems, or ANY new system (having also introduced them to Final Fantasy d6 and Savage Worlds, the former of which is infinitely simpler than 5e).

The main difference I've observed is in character creation, not at the table. Pathfinder invokes a lot more options-paralysis than 5e (and FFd6; less than Savage Worlds) due to just having so much more stuff.


Option paralysis at build time directly translates to option paralysis at play time--you have so many more levers and now you have to understand
* how they all behave in isolation
* how they interact with each other
* how they interact with the buffs, debuffs, and other modifiers in play
* how they interact with the monsters and their abilities

to decide which one to use, with each term being orders of magnitude larger (more content, with more interactions between content). Combine that with drastically larger differences in effectiveness between the "right" and "wrong" choices and the much more lethal/rocket-tag combat. It's not just about action resolution (although that's orders of magnitude slower and more involved and gets exponentially more so as you level). It's about having to know a much larger, much more deeply connected and interacting set of rules just to decide what to do. With a much larger chance despite that of not getting to do anything effective on your turn. While waiting at least an order of magnitude more time per turn.



I will say partially the disconnect comes from my not considering "flipping through books" to be a valid complaint. There is a very good, official, searchable website with every single piece of mechanical content ever printed for Pathfinder which is something 5e lacks (as a free service available to all players in any case). That's a resource any player and GM should be availing themselves of instead of flipping through 9 different books worth of content.

Having to go back to flipping through books (well, PDFs) in 5e was the biggest hurdle I actually had to learning THAT system.

This was a monster printed in the adventure path. Which are not on those sites. And even more so, it's the interactions that matter. Sure, you can look up each piece in isolation. If you know what to search for and how to drill down. But the interaction terms? Yeah, good luck there. And there are buckets more of them in PF1e, by design. Ranging from inconsequential to :wtf-owl: to absolutely vital. And then you have rules overriding other rules conditionally, so you still have to decide what rules do I even search for.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 04:52 PM
Option paralysis at build time directly translates to option paralysis at play time--you have so many more levers and now you have to understand
* how they all behave in isolation
* how they interact with each other
* how they interact with the buffs, debuffs, and other modifiers in play
* how they interact with the monsters and their abilities

This is typically what comes with playing a game, yes. You have to make moment to moment choices. This goes for 5e as well, though I suppose you CAN just make a character who does nothing but basic attack for the whole campaign if you want.






This was a monster printed in the adventure path. Which are not on those sites. And even more so, it's the interactions that matter. Sure, you can look up each piece in isolation. If you know what to search for and how to drill down. But the interaction terms? Yeah, good luck there. And there are buckets more of them in PF1e, by design. Ranging from inconsequential to :wtf-owl: to absolutely vital. And then you have rules overriding other rules conditionally, so you still have to decide what rules do I even search for.

Yes, monsters printed in APs are on the sites. Specifically, the SRD has them, like this monster from Carrion Crown (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/bestiary/unique-monsters/cr-11/the-aberrant-promethean/). As are most NPC statblocks for that matter. And everything you need to search for is in the statblock...just like in 5e. The statblock itself doesn't tell you how AC and saves work, for instance. You need to do the legwork on that yourself.

Keltest
2023-02-02, 04:59 PM
For what its worth, having somebody come in here and tell people that Pathfinder isnt that complicated, their issues with it arent real, and if they just think about it some theyll see the natural equality or superiority of the system is the perfect demonstration of why I aggressively avoid pathfinder.

Ive played both systems. Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex than 5e. I don't like that I need a flow chart to resolve each individual combat action in PF regardless of how difficult it is to remember the chart.

Rynjin
2023-02-02, 05:06 PM
The flowchart argument doesn't even really register with me. You can make a flowchart out of anything. Hell, about 25% of my job is making flowcharts out of **** that shouldn't be complicated enough to warrant one.

"Click on the thing that says X, it will perform Y function, now close the window"

"I don't get it"

*puts random rectangles around the three bits of that literal single sentence separated by commas*

"Oh yeah now I get it"

Edit: All right, when the conversation starts making me think about work I should probably just bow out of it.

Keltest
2023-02-02, 05:10 PM
The flowchart argument doesn't even really register with me. You can make a flowchart out of anything. Hell, about 25% of my job is making flowcharts out of **** that shouldn't be complicated enough to warrant one.

"Click on the thing that says X, it will perform Y function, now close the window"

"I don't get it"

*puts random rectangles around the three bits of that literal single sentence separated by commas*

"Oh yeah now I get it"

Ok, but Pathfinder is complicated enough to warrant it. If I was invested enough in the argument, I could put together a pretty elaborate one just for resolving a fighter's attempt to hit something with his sword. 5e is nothing like that.

Segev
2023-02-02, 05:14 PM
I say this as a fan of PF1 and 3.5: both are far more complicated in execution than 5e. You can do some complex builds in 5e. But PF1 is going to have far more complexity to both the build and the moment-to-moment gameplay unless you very carefully design your build to NOT be complicated in moment-to-moment gameplay. And where's the fun in that? :smallwink::smallcool:

lesser_minion
2023-02-02, 05:30 PM
I did not put much time into thinking these specific examples, so this isn't surprising. Still, brilliant energy toggles whether physical armor matters. Flat footed toggles Dex and dodge-based ACs. Touch toggles armor and NA and a few other things. Combining the situations means more numbers to have pre-calculated (or not, and which case that's 'people not bothering to add their modifiers beforehand,' apparently).

I can't really see either of these as examples of 3e/PF being "all about fiddly little modifiers". Brilliant energy has a very good chance of being the defining feature of the weapon you chose to wield. And while the four different kinds of AC could have been handled a lot more elegantly, they're frequently-occurring, fairly simple to precompute, and each has a clear situation where it applies.

The combat modifiers table is definitely more complex than in 4e and 5e, but the underlying logic is fairly simple.

JNAProductions
2023-02-02, 05:46 PM
I can't really see either of these as examples of 3e/PF being "all about fiddly little modifiers". Brilliant energy has a very good chance of being the defining feature of the weapon you chose to wield. And while the four different kinds of AC could have been handled a lot more elegantly, they're frequently-occurring, fairly simple to precompute, and each has a clear situation where it applies.

The combat modifiers table is definitely more complex than in 4e and 5e, but the underlying logic is fairly simple.

Dazzled
-1 to attacks

Entangled
-2 to attacks, plus -4 to Dexterity which may affect your hit rolls

Flanking
+2 to attacks, melee only

Invisible
+2 to attacks, plus defender loses their Dex bonus to AC

On Higher Ground
+1 to attacks, melee only

Prone
-4 to attacks, melee only
Cannot perform ranged attacks with most weapons

Shaken or Frightened
-2 to attacks

Squeezing Through A Space
-4 to attacksCover
+4 to AC

Blinded
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Concealed or Invisible
Has a percent chance of missing regardless of attack roll result

Cowering
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Entangled
No modifiers directly, but -4 penalty to Dex which may apply modifiers

Flat Footed
Lose Dex bonus

Grappling
No modifiers

Helpless
-4 to AC against melee, no modifiers to ranged. Also, denied Dex to AC, but listed with a different superscript from other lose Dex bonuses for some reason?

Kneeling or Sitting
-2 to AC against melee, +2 to AC against ranged

Pinned
-4 to AC against melee, no modifier against ranged. But has the same "lose Dex bonus" as Helpless.

Prone
-4 to AC against melee, +4 to AC against ranged

Squeezing
-4 to AC

Stunned
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

That's for Pathfinder, straight from the SRD (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Combat-Modifiers).

For 5E...

Target is Blinded, Restrained, or Stunned
Advantage

Target is Prone
Advantage within 5', disadvantage further away.

Target is Paralyzed or Unconscious
Advantage, and attacks within 5' automatically crit.

Invisible
Advantage

Blinded, Frightened, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Squeezing Through A Small Space
DisadvantageHalf Cover
+2 AC and Dex Saves

3/4ths Cover
+5 AC and Dex Saves

Invisible
Inflict disadvantage on attacks

5E still has a decent amount of things. But, with the exception of Cover, it all boils down to (dis)advantage.

I won't say that it's better because of that-because that's down to preference.
I will say it's simpler because of that. Whether or not that is desirable is up to the individual.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-02, 05:59 PM
For what its worth, having somebody come in here and tell people that Pathfinder isnt that complicated, their issues with it arent real, and if they just think about it some theyll see the natural equality or superiority of the system is the perfect demonstration of why I aggressively avoid pathfinder.

Ive played both systems. Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex than 5e. I don't like that I need a flow chart to resolve each individual combat action in PF regardless of how difficult it is to remember the chart.

Strong agreement with all of this. Responding to "it feels really complex and finicky" with "It's not really that complex unless you're too lazy or dumb to do a little simple stuff" says a lot about the community of that game. And this isn't the only case of this--this behavior is stereotypical for online PF pushers in my experience. And utterly repellant, even as someone who does have the capacity but does not have the desire to wade through a sea of stuff and does not appreciate being called either dumb or lazy.


Dazzled
-1 to attacks

Entangled
-2 to attacks, plus -4 to Dexterity which may affect your hit rolls

Flanking
+2 to attacks, melee only

Invisible
+2 to attacks, plus defender loses their Dex bonus to AC

On Higher Ground
+1 to attacks, melee only

Prone
-4 to attacks, melee only
Cannot perform ranged attacks with most weapons

Shaken or Frightened
-2 to attacks

Squeezing Through A Space
-4 to attacksCover
+4 to AC

Blinded
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Concealed or Invisible
Has a percent chance of missing regardless of attack roll result

Cowering
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

Entangled
No modifiers directly, but -4 penalty to Dex which may apply modifiers

Flat Footed
Lose Dex bonus

Grappling
No modifiers

Helpless
-4 to AC against melee, no modifiers to ranged. Also, denied Dex to AC, but listed with a different superscript from other lose Dex bonuses for some reason?

Kneeling or Sitting
-2 to AC against melee, +2 to AC against ranged

Pinned
-4 to AC against melee, no modifier against ranged. But has the same "lose Dex bonus" as Helpless.

Prone
-4 to AC against melee, +4 to AC against ranged

Squeezing
-4 to AC

Stunned
-2 to AC, lose Dex bonus

That's for Pathfinder, straight from the SRD (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/gamemastering/Combat/#TOC-Combat-Modifiers).

For 5E...

Target is Blinded, Restrained, or Stunned
Advantage

Target is Prone
Advantage within 5', disadvantage further away.

Target is Paralyzed or Unconscious
Advantage, and attacks within 5' automatically crit.

Invisible
Advantage

Blinded, Frightened, Poisoned, Prone, Restrained, Squeezing Through A Small Space
DisadvantageHalf Cover
+2 AC and Dex Saves

3/4ths Cover
+5 AC and Dex Saves

Invisible
Inflict disadvantage on attacks

5E still has a decent amount of things. But, with the exception of Cover, it all boils down to (dis)advantage.

I won't say that it's better because of that-because that's down to preference.
I will say it's simpler because of that. Whether or not that is desirable is up to the individual.

And this doesn't include all the feats, spells, and abilities that add their own modifiers not covered under the general ones. Or their interaction terms.

aimlessPolymath
2023-02-02, 06:02 PM
When I played PF2e (as a hobgoblin fighter), the things that bothered me fell into two main categories:

-Being given a large number of low-impact choices (skill feats being the greatest offender here). To a lesser extent, this was present in PF1e as well, whey gave characters significantly more feats, plus (for many classes) a talent system to pick up special abilities and customize capabilities- but then split abilities up into ever-longer feat chains. In PF2e, this was most present in the form of highly situational skill/racial feats- gaining increased resistance to poison/disease, protection from specific casting traditions, or the ability to take less damage from falls are all situationally useful to have, but they're unlikely to come up on any given adventure, and aren't particularly exciting.

-Hands/item juggling, interact actions, other assorted action taxes. The three-action system is really cool! I like the idea of (in theory) being able to move, attack, and do something else that complements my main action. However, a number of things continuously taxed my actions.. Throwing a weapon or using a consumable takes two actions; one to draw and one to throw. Switching from one to two hands on a weapon? An action. Playing a flexible fighting style (I was trying to use a versatile weapon, fighting either two-handed with my or leaving a hand free to use items or cast spells from my free caster archetype) felt heavily taxed. As a fighter, a lot of my combat options would be granted by feats, but I didn't have enough feats (at least at low level) to have real flexibility- it felt like I had a very limited action rotation.

I can see both of those causing a backlash- heavily regimented / restricted actions in particular seem like they could cause frustration to someone coming from 5e where, in contrast, the action to pick something up is brushed over as a free interaction.

Psyren
2023-02-02, 07:10 PM
Yeah, what I like in 5e is that you don't have a "move action." You just have a certain amount of movement, and you can expend it at any point during and throughout your turn. Do you have Extra Attack and a pair of light weapons? You can move ten feet up to attack somebody, and, if you drop them, move another ten feet over to a second somebody to use your extra attack, and, if you drop THEM, move to a third somebody another 10 feet away and attack them with your off-hand attack. All with 30 feet of movement, an action (for attacking and extra attacking), and a bonus action (for the off-hand attack).

I'm sure there's a feat coupon for this somewhere :smalltongue:

And lest we forget, you're eating fat penalties on those subsequent attacks unless you have... yet more feat coupons?



IME it's a lack of wanting to learn something new, not a matter of over-complexity, and the ones that struggle with Pathfinder struggle equally with 5e because they simply do not want to pay attention.

I have no problem paying attention. I mastered PF1, which is orders of magnitude more complex than PF2. I just don't see a reason to do so any longer when I don't need to.

Pex
2023-02-02, 07:19 PM
Isn't awarding large numbers of +2s and -2s literally given in the 3e DMG as an example of what not to do? I always thought that complaints about "fiddly maths" were to do with mostly-static things like adding up your AC.

The problem wasn't adding +1 or +2. The problem was there were many different sources each providing their own +1s and +2s they add up to +10 or whatever you needed to remember. Eventually someone would forget a bonus here and there. Even in 5E now I still see players forget to roll the 1d4 from bless.

The one benefit VTT has to play Pathfinder is they can calculate all the math for you. I'm playing a Pathfinder 1E game on Foundry. There is a Buffs section on my character sheet. I can click as many buffs on I get and all the math necessary is done for me I just hit the roll button on whatever thing I'm doing. I don't know how it works on the DM side to create it, but it appears to me a combination of just adding on the ability from the game library and the DM creating a macro of a math function depending on the class ability/buff. There is that initial set up work that needs to be done, but once it's done it's calculated for you. For a DM who likes the game that initial set-up would be part of the fun. Even if you play in person use it for your character sheet. I remember the pencil and paper days playing Pathfinder. Score one for today's technology.

Kane0
2023-02-02, 08:27 PM
For what its worth, having somebody come in here and tell people that Pathfinder isnt that complicated, their issues with it arent real, and if they just think about it some theyll see the natural equality or superiority of the system is the perfect demonstration of why I aggressively avoid pathfinder.

Ive played both systems. Pathfinder is an order of magnitude more complex than 5e. I don't like that I need a flow chart to resolve each individual combat action in PF regardless of how difficult it is to remember the chart.

Seconded. As having played Carrion Crown and Kingmaker and then Hoard of the Dragon Queen and Princes of the Apocalypse with the same group of people I prefer 5e.

RandomPeasant
2023-02-02, 09:33 PM
Do you honestly think 3.5 is just as easy to learn as 5E?

Yes. The amount of stuff you need to do to create a character that can play through Sunless Citadel is not higher than the amount of stuff you need to do to play through whatever the equivalent "starter adventure" in 5e is. There is a high skill ceiling, but honestly some characters in 3e are simpler than their 5e counterparts. There's no Action Surge on the 3e Fighter.


In 3.5, a poorly built Monk will start being outclassed by a Druid's animal companion pretty early on. Not even the Druid-specifically their companion. A single class feature.

Aren't you switching your goalposts a little there? "Outclassed by" isn't the same as "not contributing". The Monk can still do stuff. They may be less good than the Druid, but that doesn't make them worthless. Indeed, the difficulty with which the "is the Monk bad" debate proceeded in the time of 3e suggests, at least to me, that the subjectively lived experience of new players is very much not that the Monk is completely worthless.


Not to mention, you cannot play the game without content. You can't just have the core rules of 3.5 or 5E and play without classes, and spells, and items.

Sure. But while there's a lot more content in 3e overall, the amount you need to learn to play any given character, particularly any given low-level character, is about the same. It is true that 3e contains Warlocks and Crusaders and Psions and Binders and Incarnates and whatever the hell else. But none of that matters to the guy who is building his first character that is a Dwarf Barbarian or whatever. It is true that you could theoretically go out and look through the entire universe of 1st level spells to decide which ones your Sorcerer is going to know, but I can honestly say I've never seen someone do that. Even completely unsupported people just pick a couple of core spells that they think are cool.

Honestly, it's weird that when you talk about 3e in isolation, it's all "forumites aren't typical, most people don't think about it", but the second we're talking about 3e in comparison to anything else everyone is getting a degree in CharOp theory before they build their first character. It's just not actually that hard to make a guy in 3e even if you've never played D&D before.


Option paralysis at build time directly translates to option paralysis at play time--you have so many more levers and now you have to understand

This is simply objectively false. How complex something is to build has very little to do with how complex it is to play. A Sorcerer is enormously complicated to build, because you have to narrow down the entire universe of Sorcerer/Wizard spells to ~4 options at each level and schedule your progression in such a way that things come into and out of your set of relevant options in a way that never leaves you with anything important uncovered. But in play you have like half a dozen options that matter maybe. Compare that to a Druid, where there's like three build choices that matter to any meaningful degree (do you know what Natural Spell is? do you know what Greenbound Summoning is? do you know what Planar Shepherd is? -- and note that the class itself involves no build choices!) but in play you can change your character almost unrecognizably from day to day and each of your prepared spells can be cashed out for a different spell that allows you to choose between many different allies to add to a fight which you can then command.

Kane0
2023-02-02, 11:39 PM
Yes. The amount of stuff you need to do to create a character that can play through Sunless Citadel is not higher than the amount of stuff you need to do to play through whatever the equivalent "starter adventure" in 5e is. There is a high skill ceiling, but honestly some characters in 3e are simpler than their 5e counterparts. There's no Action Surge on the 3e Fighter.

Sunless Citadel made it into 5e, coincidentally. Lost Mines of Phandelver is the older, more common starter adventure but you can find the Sunless Citadel in the Tales from the Yawning Portal book.

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 12:17 AM
I miss Touch AC, but not Flat-footed AC. No idea why.

Frankly, I don't think having a couple or even three to four fiddly numbers in a game is bad, as long as they make sense and don't particularly interact with one another in unexpected ways. And Advantage comes with its' own set of issues. For instance, I find it highly unintuitive that 5e Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't stack to the extent that having three sources of Adv and one source of Disadv means you roll normally instead of with Advantage. I also find it rather unintuitive that Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't actually impact your ability - if you roll a double 20 on disadvantage, you have still performed as well as you would normally.

That part of PF2 is actually pretty fine - you've got circumstance, status, proficiency and item bonuses/penalties. Proficiency and Item pretty much never changes in combat, and keeping track of two mods isn't that hard.


When I played PF2e (as a hobgoblin fighter), the things that bothered me fell into two main categories:

-Being given a large number of low-impact choices (skill feats being the greatest offender here). To a lesser extent, this was present in PF1e as well, whey gave characters significantly more feats, plus (for many classes) a talent system to pick up special abilities and customize capabilities- but then split abilities up into ever-longer feat chains. In PF2e, this was most present in the form of highly situational skill/racial feats- gaining increased resistance to poison/disease, protection from specific casting traditions, or the ability to take less damage from falls are all situationally useful to have, but they're unlikely to come up on any given adventure, and aren't particularly exciting.

-Hands/item juggling, interact actions, other assorted action taxes. The three-action system is really cool! I like the idea of (in theory) being able to move, attack, and do something else that complements my main action. However, a number of things continuously taxed my actions.. Throwing a weapon or using a consumable takes two actions; one to draw and one to throw. Switching from one to two hands on a weapon? An action. Playing a flexible fighting style (I was trying to use a versatile weapon, fighting either two-handed with my or leaving a hand free to use items or cast spells from my free caster archetype) felt heavily taxed. As a fighter, a lot of my combat options would be granted by feats, but I didn't have enough feats (at least at low level) to have real flexibility- it felt like I had a very limited action rotation.

I can see both of those causing a backlash- heavily regimented / restricted actions in particular seem like they could cause frustration to someone coming from 5e where, in contrast, the action to pick something up is brushed over as a free interaction.

Both are very relevant criticisms of PF2. The options are there, they just don't matter all that much and aren't exciting to use. It's balanced to the point at which it stops being fun. There's almost nothing to look forward to if your enjoyment of the game doesn't boil down to "oh boy I get +20% to potential DPR next level".

About the only cool and generally useful+powerful option I've picked up over a year of play was Soulforger, which is GM-dependent (marked "uncommon", so you can't declare that you're taking it without GM approval), and all that does is allow you to manifest armor/weapons, and, once per day, grant yourself a buff usually equivalent to a 1-3 level spell. For several feats.

And as for action taxing, it's simply ridiculous at times. Trust me, versatile weapons plus free hand have it much better than 2H or TWF users - they, at least, can fight without going "ok I can't do a combat maneuver without a hand free, so that's a guaranteed loss of an action".

RandomPeasant
2023-02-03, 12:30 AM
I miss Touch AC, but not Flat-footed AC. No idea why.

Probably just that the difference between regular AC and touch AC really mattered and the difference between regular AC and Flat-footed AC generally didn't. Even when you were talking about the few monsters that had a giant DEX bonus, it was still smaller than armor bonuses at the same level.


For instance, I find it highly unintuitive that 5e Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't stack to the extent that having three sources of Adv and one source of Disadv means you roll normally instead of with Advantage. I also find it rather unintuitive that Advantage/Disadvantage doesn't actually impact your ability - if you roll a double 20 on disadvantage, you have still performed as well as you would normally.

Advantage and Disadvantage always struck me as seeming like the product of someone who wanted to work in a dicepool system, but didn't think their bosses would let them change over fully. If we're talking about complexity, I don't even think it's inherently simpler than 3e's system (especially not with the variable bonuses 5e uses for some reason). Any reduction in complexity comes from reducing the number of modifiers, but there really aren't that many modifiers you have to handle as a starting character in 3e. You're not going to go out there and find every obscure source of stacking bonuses.


Both are very relevant criticisms of PF2.

I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5. It seems like it scooped out all the things that aren't annoying little fiddly bonuses. So if that's your comparison, I can easily see why you'd end up favoring 5e.

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 12:53 AM
Probably just that the difference between regular AC and touch AC really mattered and the difference between regular AC and Flat-footed AC generally didn't. Even when you were talking about the few monsters that had a giant DEX bonus, it was still smaller than armor bonuses at the same level.
And perhaps because Touch AC has a lot more interactions with gameplay - there are several abilities focused around targeting/improving Touch AC in particular, but Flat-footed AC is usually just "your AC minus Dex", and almost nothing targets it specifically, it just applies at some points.



Advantage and Disadvantage always struck me as seeming like the product of someone who wanted to work in a dicepool system, but didn't think their bosses would let them change over fully. If we're talking about complexity, I don't even think it's inherently simpler than 3e's system (especially not with the variable bonuses 5e uses for some reason). Any reduction in complexity comes from reducing the number of modifiers, but there really aren't that many modifiers you have to handle as a starting character in 3e. You're not going to go out there and find every obscure source of stacking bonuses.
I've taught several absolute newcomers how to play 3.5. None were too put off by starting character abilities, despite all of them playing as some sort of "advanced" class (there were a Duskblade, a Binder, a Warblade...).

Advantage/Disadvantage is only simpler than 3e mods when you do work in all the rules of 5e about them not stacking and so on, and not particularly so at any rate.



I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5. It seems like it scooped out all the things that aren't annoying little fiddly bonuses. So if that's your comparison, I can easily see why you'd end up favoring 5e.
My general take is that PF2 is for people who want to play "balanced 5e" mixed, maybe, with some 4e and early 3e sensibilities. It has some high points - mostly in how readable the rules are and how everything is defined pretty well, so you don't have to guess what, say, a Flesh to Stone spell actually does on a mechanical level.

In fact, PF2 has many of the same issues as 5e feel-wise: quite grounded (except for everyone this time around), too focused on basic level 1 mechanics/gameplay that never change for many characters, stuck in a limbo of "we want resource management, but not for everyone", etc. However, 5e has a larger in-built tolerance for imbalanced stuff (mathematically and ability-wise). For instance, 5e's expectations do not exactly fall apart if a character consistently deals double the damage of a similar character (martial vs martial). PF2 is likely to consider this an irrevocable breach of balance (unless a Fighter does it, then it's fine). 5e can, with a squint, take a character who has access to at-will flight pretty early on - PF2 won't.

animorte
2023-02-03, 06:26 AM
Advantage and Disadvantage always struck me as seeming like the product of someone who wanted to work in a dicepool system, but didn't think their bosses would let them change over fully.
Speaking of dice pool system, I'm not particularly a fan. Any time I see it, I roll my eyes. It's not necessarily because of the pool itself, more about the die size increasing that is common with it. It's a small, almost silly thought, but I don't like the idea of leveling up from 1-20 and still being able to hit a 1. I generally work in a stacking dice instead.

Kurald Galain
2023-02-03, 06:44 AM
I'd say it's obvious that 5E has fast gameplay as one of its design principles, and 3E/4E/PF do not. One of the ways this shows is that the latter games slow down combat with this issue (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html); and in 5E that's almost always a blanket "adv or disadv" which simply plays much faster.

I do try to steer players away from feats or spells like "+1 damage against giant-type" or "+2 damage if enemy is below half HP" or "+1 perception while standing next to an ally", but the fact that I need to do that in the first place means there's unnecessary complexity here.

Of note, PF2 also doesn't have fast gameplay as a design principle, and is arguably the worst of the lot when it comes to conditions ("sickened 3" instead of flat-out sickened), as well as weapons with stuff like "+1 damage on each subsequent hit".

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 07:17 AM
I'd say it's obvious that 5E has fast gameplay as one of its design principles, and 3E/4E/PF do not. One of the ways this shows is that the latter games slow down combat with this issue (https://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0034.html); and in 5E that's almost always a blanket "adv or disadv" which simply plays much faster.

I do try to steer players away from feats or spells like "+1 damage against giant-type" or "+2 damage if enemy is below half HP" or "+1 perception while standing next to an ally", but the fact that I need to do that in the first place means there's unnecessary complexity here.

Of note, PF2 also doesn't have fast gameplay as a design principle, and is arguably the worst of the lot when it comes to conditions ("sickened 3" instead of flat-out sickened), as well as weapons with stuff like "+1 damage on each subsequent hit".

I do agree that it's unnecessary complexity, but what's worse is that it's not even a fun number to remember. If it were double damage vs targets below half HP, every player would remember that by heart and that would reduce complexity as well. Nobody forgets about GMW in 5e, do they?

In that, 5e made the right choice: less choices, but more impactful choices. Not as much as I'd like, but better than a lot of stupid +1 and +2 feats.

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 07:47 AM
Yes. The amount of stuff you need to do to create a character that can play through Sunless Citadel is not higher than the amount of stuff you need to do to play through whatever the equivalent "starter adventure" in 5e is. There is a high skill ceiling, but honestly some characters in 3e are simpler than their 5e counterparts. There's no Action Surge on the 3e Fighter.

With regard to 3e's complexity, this is along the lines of my thinking -- particularly experienced groups (which presumably will have grown into the complexity and gotten used to it) might end up with some very complex interactions, but plenty of groups will look like those old 3e playtests that the internet likes to laugh about, even when their characters are pretty high level. There's definitely a lot more to learn, but that doesn't mean that you can't learn at your own pace.

On the other hand, it's kind of telling that "the internet likes to laugh about" those old 3e playtest reports that showcased simple gameplay. And while the less-fun parts that people complain about might not be the whole game, they can be a big part of playing 'well'. And if a game tells me that I have to sacrifice my fun in order to feel like I'm playing well, then it's failed pretty horribly.

Xervous
2023-02-03, 07:52 AM
Generally how I look at it is 5e doesn’t demand much time but it doesn’t get me close to where I want to be. PF2e demands time and gets me nowhere. 3.5e and PF1 demand lots of time but they can produce what I want and it’s far easier to smooth down the pointy edges rather than build something where there’s nothing. If I’m going to build up, it’s going to be my own system with hookers and blackjack. Then there’s freeform on the side...

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 08:09 AM
I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5.

That seems to agree with what I've heard. Some people do say that they're having fun with PF2e, but the moment anyone goes into much detail about their experience, my interest in the game evaporates.

Satinavian
2023-02-03, 08:37 AM
I will say that I have never seen someone give an account of why I would want to play PF2e over PF1e or 3.5. It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 08:40 AM
It has a better skill system by far.

That's...an interesting take. Why do you like it so much?

Segev
2023-02-03, 08:41 AM
It has a better skill system by far.

How so? Please elaborate; I'm curious what it does better, and how it is better.

Satinavian
2023-02-03, 08:45 AM
I just like that becoming good at a skill is not about just adding various stackable bonuses from various sources and instead mean actual investment. I like the idea of skill feats and them becoming pretty central (and not competing with regular feats most of the time). Meaning that ability in a skill naturally takes on different forms. I also like how the system gives proper meaning to the various skill levels.

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 09:01 AM
I won't lie, I like that IDEA as well; one of my favorite systems uses a similarly less "fiddly" progression (in Savage Worlds the die just goes up a step when you get better at something), but I always found the execution of it in PF2E very lacking.

Willie the Duck
2023-02-03, 09:07 AM
The flowchart argument doesn't even really register with me. You can make a flowchart out of anything. Hell, about 25% of my job is making flowcharts out of **** that shouldn't be complicated enough to warrant one.
I think that's the fundamental point of contention in a nutshell. 'I do this for my job, so what's the problem' is battling with 'why would I want to do something people do for their jobs during my elfgame?'

[All of this is preemptive 'IMO'] Look, again, with some exceptions*, none of these tasks are too hard to do. I don't think I've seen any technical or mental-mechanics action required in a TTRPG that I think most anyone who would be interested in TTRPGs couldn't do. Certainly not in any of the D&Ds or D&D-alikes. Hero System occasionally has multiplying 15xpower level x (1.0+.25+.5+1.25+.75)/1.0+1.25+2.75) or something like that (mid-game, if you have to recalculate something after a drain or boost), and Traveller and Fatal each have a single piece of algebra or calculus or something in them (GURPS 3e Vehicles also has a cubed-root exactly once, and it's widely mocked as complexity-without-purpose). The fundamental question is whether people find this both fun and necessary. When people say it is 'too hard,' they do not mean 'too hard to do,' but rather, 'too hard to bother with.'
*the games are for most ages, and I certainly don't want to gatekeep the game from those who find mathematics challenging

That's certainly been my experience with what I will call the 'gamer spouse*' community. Those who tried playing alongside the dedicated gamer to spend more time with them/get what they are doing/maybe enjoy for themselves and then have a shared interest tried for a while with 3e/pf and then mostly found other things to do during game night. With 5e, more have taken to the game long-term.
*sometimes S.O. instead, or parents/siblings/etc.

And I have to agree with PheonixPhyre that this is a lot about how the numbers pull the game towards a focus on the mechanics/the game UI layer, when many people are going to care more about who their paladin talks to or what their thief finds in the treasure chest in the ghoul-crypt, rather than how to calculate their AC vs. said ghouls. It's not really PF vs. 5e that this evokes to me, but PF vs TSR-era D&D. In many ways, the rules of TSR D&D/AD&D are more arcane than any of the modern games, but for the most part (1E initiative arguments notwithstanding) they seemed to fade into the background more, and let the state that you were playing an adventurer in a situation shine through and let the underlying mechanics stay in the background. I think that's what a significant portion of gamers want, who do not find it with 3e/PF.

All these things are going to be annecdotal, since there isn't really a single reason why people do/don't like things, but I'd still stake a claim that the fiddly numbers bit are a nontrivial part of why some people who are okay with 5e do not like 3e/PF.


I can't really see either of these as examples of 3e/PF being "all about fiddly little modifiers". Brilliant energy has a very good chance of being the defining feature of the weapon you chose to wield. And while the four different kinds of AC could have been handled a lot more elegantly, they're frequently-occurring, fairly simple to precompute, and each has a clear situation where it applies.
An individual has an AC, a touch AC, a flat-footed AC, a flat-footed touch AC, a vs.-brilliant-energy AC, a vs.-brilliant-energy flat-footed AC, not a vs.-brilliant-energy touch AC since they both exclude the same bonuses. If you get hit with a dex-draining effect or switch out armors or are affected by a given AC-enhancing spell, you have to know the rules on which types of bonuses apply to which and re-calculate for any of them where it does.


The combat modifiers table is definitely more complex than in 4e and 5e, but the underlying logic is fairly simple.
Again, do people really believe that the people who do not like these things or find them too complex (to enjoy) don't get them or their underlying logic?

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 09:12 AM
I think that's the fundamental point of contention in a nutshell. 'I do this for my job, so what's the problem' is battling with 'why would I want to do something people do for their jobs during my elfgame?'

It dovetails nicely with a funny thought I had yesterday after posting that too, admittedly: a decade of playing Pathfinder has made me very good at writing process documents.

Perhaps the haters were right after all.

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 09:20 AM
It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.


That's...an interesting take. Why do you like it so much?


How so? Please elaborate; I'm curious what it does better, and how it is better.

I would second Satinavian's opinion. I do not like the basic math of the game, and this includes how skills often work, but the skills are probably the best part of PF2 (see: most improved compared to competitors present and past). Skills get several levels of proficiency, and gated behind those levels of proficiency are skill feats that allow actually amazing feats of usage. See: Athletics getting a level 15 skill feat that basically transforms your high jump formula into your long jump formula (so you can leap dozens of feet high) and your long jump formula extends even further, so you can jump a couple hundred feet far. It's not exactly epic and it could be online earlier, but it's still head and shoulders above the usual raw deal that skills get.

Furthermore, skill proficiency points and skill feats are entirely separate resources from the rest of the game, so you do not feel pressured (usually) to sacrifice utility and flavour for power. There are a couple exceptions, and several outright trap feats, but it's something that can be fixed in a few hours of work rather than a whole system rewrite.

Xervous
2023-02-03, 09:24 AM
It dovetails nicely with a funny thought I had yesterday after posting that too, admittedly: a decade of playing Pathfinder has made me very good at writing process documents.

Perhaps the haters were right after all.

The understanding you’re seeking is akin to spicy food. You’ve got a taste for atomic flame, but there’s no chance of marketing that to the general public. They’ll start tearing up the moment you bring that food in the room.

gesalt
2023-02-03, 09:52 AM
If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 09:59 AM
If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

Yep, this is exactly the kind of thing I meant when I said it was executed poorly.

All of PF2e is like that. Interesting ideas implemented badly.

Kurald Galain
2023-02-03, 10:17 AM
skills are probably the best part of PF2 (see: most improved compared to competitors present and past). Skills get several levels of proficiency, and gated behind those levels of proficiency are skill feats that allow actually amazing feats of usage.

I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 10:36 AM
I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

Which also brings up the air-breathing mermaid issue...except baked into the cake and very much intended. Unless you have those (high level IIRC) feats, you can't get even cryptic hints from a religious book or ask enemies in combat to stand down.

It's a game of buttons. Have button, press button. Don't have button? Can't do thing. That's part of what I meant by it being much more mechanics-forward. You're playing the rules, piloting them to where you need to be, rather than participating in the fiction with the rules as an abstraction layer, a UI of sorts. The rules come first, the fiction comes later. To the detriment of the fiction.

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 10:42 AM
It's actually more the Rumormonger problem writ large. Rumormonger is one of the most widely mocked features in the game, because of how useless and stupid it is.

They decided to build an entire skill system around Rumormonger-tier abilities. Baffling.

Rumormonger (https://www.d20pfsrd.com/classes/core-classes/rogue/rogue-talents/paizo-rogue-advanced-talents/rumormonger-ex/) is a Rogue talent that allows a Rogue to spread rumors. With a baffling number of restrictions and caveats, to boot.

Not only does this implicitly mean that other characters CANNOT spread rumors, it means that spreading rumors is slow and mostly useless, being limited to 10th level and above Rogues who can only do so a few times per week and takes a full week of in-game time to accomplish.

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 11:16 AM
Again, do people really believe that the people who do not like these things or find them too complex (to enjoy) don't get them or their underlying logic?

There is a massive difference between saying "I don't agree with what you've said about the game" and saying "you just don't get the game or the underlying logic". Especially given that the issue is with the way you're spinning it.

skyth
2023-02-03, 11:26 AM
It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.

PF1 has a lot better rules support for Downtime activities than PF2 does. I also much prefer PF1 skill system to PF2 as in PF1 you can be decent at a lot of things as you level up but in PF2 you are only an expert in certain things as the bonus is mostly due to your level, not how you allocated skill points.

On another topic, I want to point out that complexity in character creation does not always lead to complexity in play. One of my favorite games (Hero system/Champions) has a VERY complex character creation system. However, playing the game is pretty simple and intuitive. (Unless you have a variable power pool).

kyoryu
2023-02-03, 11:31 AM
There is a massive difference between saying "I don't agree with what you've said about the game" and saying "you just don't get the game or the underlying logic". Especially given that the issue is with the way you're spinning it.

Even when you disagree, a good way to present that is "huh, that's not my experience, can you give an example?" and then try to understand and accept what the person is saying.

Offering ways around the issue, or different perspectives, can be fine, too, but it's generally best to not just invalidate the opinions of others.

Willie the Duck
2023-02-03, 11:38 AM
There is a massive difference between saying "I don't agree with what you've said about the game" and saying "you just don't get the game or the underlying logic". Especially given that the mechanics do work in the way you describe and the issue is with the way you're spinning it, such as presenting brilliant energy swords as just some random thing that comes out of nowhere instead of being a pretty rare and very expensive weapon enchantment.

I didn't say you didn't get anything. I was asking if that's what you thought others were doing (not getting things), based on your comment, "the underlying logic is fairly simple."

I'm spinning it? What are you talking about? I said nothing about anything coming out of nowhere. It's an example. An example of a spot where the game gets fiddly. Different ACs in general, much less brilliant energy, are simply an example of fiddly-detail numbers, which was germane to the discussion at hand when I made it.

Hytheter
2023-02-03, 11:39 AM
I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).

My favourite is the one that lets you count, say, the coins in a pile of coins, except not even particularly well.

warty goblin
2023-02-03, 11:49 AM
My take on reading the PF2 book was that I had probably missed the Improved Shoe Tying feat (reduces Shoe Tying to a single action), and the Shoe Tying Savant feat that lets you add your Int modifier instead of your Dex to your Shoe Tying check.

I'm joking of course, but only just.

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 12:10 PM
I love the concept of this, and it has seen some amazing implementations in other games like Exalted and Aberrant; the problem is that in PF2's execution, the overwhelming majority of skill feats are about as far from "amazing" as you can get.

For example, PF2 skill feats include the ability to get cryptic hints from a religious book (how is that even a feat?!), or the ability to ask enemies in combat to stand down (and the ability spells out that they might refuse).
Oh, for sure, a lot of feats are kinda bad. I expect that from PF2 and thus am not underwhelmed as people looking from the outside might be. There are some quite nice ones, like Cat Fall, though. Or Underwater Marauder.

Or...uhhh...yeah, okay, a lot of them are either taxes (Intimidating Glare? Menacing Prowess?) or kinda bad (Scare to Death sounds cool, and then you realize it has so many tags and failure points that you can't use it against anyone but some low-level enemies that aren't exactly worth the effort). Some are plain bad, like Armor Assist (either we count time in rounds, and thus the reduction isn't relevant, or we count time in minutes and the reduction doesn't matter much).

But the concept is already much better than whatever was previously in the game. It just needs actual fantastical abilities that you can't see someone get just by rolling really high. And maybe drop the gap between Trained and Expert feats - they're one level away, dammit. Just have Trained (humanly possible, but still incredible and uncommon), Master (slightly superhuman, clearly fantastical, on par with lower-level spells), Legendary (outright superhuman, eclipses low-level spells) feats accessible at, say, 1, 7 and 13 respectively.

The issue with PF2 is 1) math 2) it being VERY afraid to let loose and let people be good or amazing at things instead of being passable. Everything needs to be balanced and any boosts need to hew close to default instead of having immediately noticeable impact. Skill feats are no exception. I figure you could build a very fun game out of PF2 if you ditched some of the math issues (including the main "crit on a 10+ difference" mechanic) and...rewrote all the classes and feats to be more powerful and impactful.

If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

The proficiency gates are quite lenient. There are no skills that have Expert or higher trained actions. Most actions that anyone can do are considered untrained skills.

As for autofailing checks, it's more of an issue with the overall math and the desire to promote "party builds" instead of individual capability - in a typical party of four with one skill specialist (I'd rant about how they're bad for these games, but not here) will have 15 total skills covered, which is about all the skills in the game with only a couple missing.

Personally, though, I think that PF2 needed to take a leaf out of 4e's book and add half level to stuff you aren't trained in.


My take on reading the PF2 book was that I had probably missed the Improved Shoe Tying feat (reduces Shoe Tying to a single action), and the Shoe Tying Savant feat that lets you add your Int modifier instead of your Dex to your Shoe Tying check.

I'm joking of course, but only just.
That would be in line with PF2's design, but not exactly. Shoe Tying Savant would give you a +2 to your Shoe Tying check if your INT is 16 or higher. You still need to keep your DEX up to tie current-level shoes, but it's almost as if you have DEX maxed.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 12:17 PM
As for autofailing checks, it's more of an issue with the overall math and the desire to promote "party builds" instead of individual capability - in a typical party of four with one skill specialist (I'd rant about how they're bad for these games, but not here) will have 15 total skills covered, which is about all the skills in the game with only a couple missing.


To me, that screams "build a character to check all the right boxes in the party configuration". AKA "build a playing piece, not a character." Dare to adventure without someone built up-to-snuff (and with niche protection, that requires specific class groups) in <list of areas>? You fail. Which is another mechanics forcing the fiction issue.

By contrast:
1. My in-person 5e campaign is ranger/ranger/druid/cleric. No real front line (the cleric is trickery, the druid is moon but that falls off fast). No real skill monkeys. Zero charisma focused characters (in fact, all of them have CHA <= 12). No arcane casters at all. Works fine, however.
2. My online 5e campaign is currently mutant (homebrew monk-analogue)/wizard/paladin/dragon-knight (homebrew ranger/fighter mix, no spell-casting). All dex-based. No real healer or skill monkey. Still works fine.

Segev
2023-02-03, 12:24 PM
To me, that screams "build a character to check all the right boxes in the party configuration". AKA "build a playing piece, not a character." Dare to adventure without someone built up-to-snuff (and with niche protection, that requires specific class groups) in <list of areas>? You fail. Which is another mechanics forcing the fiction issue.

By contrast:
1. My in-person 5e campaign is ranger/ranger/druid/cleric. No real front line (the cleric is trickery, the druid is moon but that falls off fast). No real skill monkeys. Zero charisma focused characters (in fact, all of them have CHA <= 12). No arcane casters at all. Works fine, however.
2. My online 5e campaign is currently mutant (homebrew monk-analogue)/wizard/paladin/dragon-knight (homebrew ranger/fighter mix, no spell-casting). All dex-based. No real healer or skill monkey. Still works fine.

Yeah, with bounded accuracy, you can have an 8 charisma and still occasionally succeed at persuasion and even deception. I know; I've done it.

As to the moon druid, just wait until very high level when he can wild shape as many times as he wants.

If you're really seeing moon druid drop off too much, maybe give them an additional wild shape per short rest at level 6 and 10?

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 12:30 PM
To me, that screams "build a character to check all the right boxes in the party configuration". AKA "build a playing piece, not a character." Dare to adventure without someone built up-to-snuff (and with niche protection, that requires specific class groups) in <list of areas>? You fail. Which is another mechanics forcing the fiction issue.

PF2 is incredibly heavy on this kind of thinking. A party without healing cannot handle encounters above Medium, and cannot handle more than two or three fights a day, period. So someone has to either be a healer class (Cleric is so stupidly good at healing that Oracle is kind of a trap option for that) or pick up Medicine and pump WIS+Medicine proficiencies skill feats to keep it relevant. A party without knowledge skills has no IC methods of finding out enemy abilities, saves, weaknesses and resistances (which are far more important than in 5e, most of the time). A party without a STR+Athletics focused character has no means to use most combat maneuvers for CC. A party without a buff character (Wizard/Bard work best for that) is going to need some help, too. Etc, etc.

The ideal PF2 party is a Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, Cleric - in the bog-standard, default way of "Fighter smashes and frontlines, Rogue flanks and stabs and skills, Wizard buffs and throws AoE fireballs, Cleric heals with both spells and Medicine". It's far superior to most other setups that don't include at least one of those functions.

It's part of why I really dislike the game, despite praising some parts of it. "build a playing piece, not a character" is right in many ways for PF2. It's a wargame for 4-6 players, one of them being the GM.

animorte
2023-02-03, 12:32 PM
All dex-based.
That alone works for me. #1 stat

gesalt
2023-02-03, 12:32 PM
The proficiency gates are quite lenient. There are no skills that have Expert or higher trained actions. Most actions that anyone can do are considered untrained skills.

As for autofailing checks, it's more of an issue with the overall math and the desire to promote "party builds" instead of individual capability - in a typical party of four with one skill specialist (I'd rant about how they're bad for these games, but not here) will have 15 total skills covered, which is about all the skills in the game with only a couple missing. Just to make sure there's no disconnect, I mean things like traps that you literally can't detect if your class doesn't give you the perception proficiency level needed to detect it. It how you need master arcana or thievery or whatever for upper level hazards/haunts to be allowed to disarm them.

The autofailing because trained doesn't keep up with level based DC is a separate matter entirely. That's just low odds, not banned from participation.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 12:38 PM
Yeah, with bounded accuracy, you can have an 8 charisma and still occasionally succeed at persuasion and even deception. I know; I've done it.

As to the moon druid, just wait until very high level when he can wild shape as many times as he wants.

If you're really seeing moon druid drop off too much, maybe give them an additional wild shape per short rest at level 6 and 10?

It's not really number of shapes, but that the shapes don't scale well at all. Super great from 2-5 or so, then basically fall off a cliff. Both offensively and defensively. Honestly, the whole "dig for stat block" thing (polymorph and friends, wild shape, summoning) are all borked. On my (very long) list of things to rewrite is to turn them all into properly scaling stat blocks.

Doesn't help that the moon druid is being played by a completely new player (like has never played an RPG before new). Honestly, she's fine because it's a very low-op party and she's got spell cards and monster cards for her wild shape. And she's honestly more on the ball about it than one of the ranger players, who has a distressing tendency to smoke weed and forget what the heck he was doing. But that's a weed problem, not a system problem.

It does say something that a brand new player can jump into probably the most complicated core class (moon druid) and handle it fine with only a little coaching. She even joined late.


PF2 is incredibly heavy on this kind of thinking. A party without healing cannot handle encounters above Medium, and cannot handle more than two or three fights a day, period. So someone has to either be a healer class (Cleric is so stupidly good at healing that Oracle is kind of a trap option for that) or pick up Medicine and pump WIS+Medicine proficiencies skill feats to keep it relevant.

It's part of why I really dislike the game, despite praising some parts of it. "build a playing piece, not a character" is right in many ways for PF2. It's a wargame for 4-6 players, one of them being the GM.

Ugh. Yeah. That's a reason I don't have any desire to play it. I like being able to DM for completely unbalanced parties and make them work. Each one is different and faces different threats in different ways.

Satinavian
2023-02-03, 01:00 PM
I figure you could build a very fun game out of PF2 if you ditched some of the math issues (including the main "crit on a 10+ difference" mechanic) and...rewrote all the classes and feats to be more powerful and impactful.
Yes, maybe we get that from a third party if ORC takes off.

The game has a good chassis.

But personally, while i would sooner play PF2 than D&D5, stuff becomes less favorible when PF1 is an option.

Though honestly, i will stick to Splittermond as main system for the forseeible future. It does nearly everything important to me better than any D&D/PF version.

Amidus Drexel
2023-02-03, 01:05 PM
Personally, though, I think that PF2 needed to take a leaf out of 4e's book and add half level to stuff you aren't trained in.

At the risk of derailing the conversation into musings on game design in general, I really don't enjoy "high level characters are very good at everything" mechanics like that. I want a character's effectiveness to come from the work they've put in training in their area of expertise, not just from looting dungeons and getting EXP. I also like the granularity of skill systems like 3.5 that let you decide how much you want to invest in a particular skill (though 3.5's choice of how many points to allocate - for some classes - and what skills exist leave some things to be desired).


To me, that screams "build a character to check all the right boxes in the party configuration". AKA "build a playing piece, not a character." Dare to adventure without someone built up-to-snuff (and with niche protection, that requires specific class groups) in <list of areas>? You fail. Which is another mechanics forcing the fiction issue.

I understand the disdain for niche protection, but I'm not sure I understand the complaint about party composition. In a class or archetype-based system (where classes/archetypes are meaningfully distinct), certain mixes of archetypes are going to have gaps in what they can do. I'd even argue that's ideal - what fun is building a party of four barbarians if you don't occasionally have to deal with the problems that should logically cause? I don't want my cabal of wizards to effortlessly crush at-level enemies in melee combat - I want that to be a real challenge for them (at least without their magic).

(And, ultimately, you are building a playing piece, regardless of how you characterize it once it's made.)

I do think it's a strength of 5e that most archetypes have built-in sustain and reasonable combat capability, but it's not hard to build a party with weaknesses that you have to play around - or your DM is playing around to make the game more fun. These things are fine - in fact, I do the same thing with the game I'm running - the party doesn't have a knowledgeable character, an effective toolbox character, or an arcane caster, so there are some kinds of obstacles I just can't put in front of them and expect them to succeed (and they have a "normal" party of fighter, rogue, cleric - there are just 3 of them, though).



By contrast:
1. My in-person 5e campaign is ranger/ranger/druid/cleric. No real front line (the cleric is trickery, the druid is moon but that falls off fast). No real skill monkeys. Zero charisma focused characters (in fact, all of them have CHA <= 12). No arcane casters at all. Works fine, however.
2. My online 5e campaign is currently mutant (homebrew monk-analogue)/wizard/paladin/dragon-knight (homebrew ranger/fighter mix, no spell-casting). All dex-based. No real healer or skill monkey. Still works fine.

1. The first party is basically balanced - your trickery cleric is your toolbox character (I've played a trickery cleric before - they're pretty decent at it), and you've got two generalists and another spellcaster to boot. Assuming your rangers have lowish HP and are focused on archery, you're only really out of your depth if you get ambushed at close range (unlikely with two rangers), and only really at low levels. You might struggle with long-term diplomacy (no CHA focus) or specific enemies (no arcane magic), but on average you're probably fine for the typical dungeon or wilderness crawl.
2. The second party is pretty heavily homebrewed (so take my evaluation with a grain of salt), but from what I can tell looks like it has fairly minimal sustain - it would struggle with an attrition-heavy adventure that required long days with lots of at-level combat (I'm currently playing in a similar group without a real toolbox character or any real sustain, and we can't take more than a fight or two between rests). It also looks like it doesn't have much in the way of ranged or stealth capabilities. The wizard can cover any "toolbox" needs pretty easily, and the paladin can probably handle diplomacy to some degree.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 01:28 PM
I understand the disdain for niche protection, but I'm not sure I understand the complaint about party composition. In a class or archetype-based system (where classes/archetypes are meaningfully distinct), certain mixes of archetypes are going to have gaps in what they can do. I'd even argue that's ideal - what fun is building a party of four barbarians if you don't occasionally have to deal with the problems that should logically cause? I don't want my cabal of wizards to effortlessly crush at-level enemies in melee combat - I want that to be a real challenge for them (at least without their magic).

(And, ultimately, you are building a playing piece, regardless of how you characterize it once it's made.)

I do think it's a strength of 5e that most archetypes have built-in sustain and reasonable combat capability, but it's not hard to build a party with weaknesses that you have to play around - or your DM is playing around to make the game more fun. These things are fine - in fact, I do the same thing with the game I'm running - the party doesn't have a knowledgeable character, an effective toolbox character, or an arcane caster, so there are some kinds of obstacles I just can't put in front of them and expect them to succeed (and they have a "normal" party of fighter, rogue, cleric - there are just 3 of them, though).


Dealing with problems is one thing. Being incapable of handling a normal adventuring day or even a large chunk of monsters (due to needing condition removal)? A PF2e unbalanced party simply cannot do most things. Just hard blocked. This isn't even a problem that can be solved by changing tactics, it's just a hard "no, you can't even attempt this." Especially where Adventure Paths are concerned--if you don't have the meta composition, you simply fail. Do not pass go, do not complete quest. Effectively you're playing with premades by design. Someone doesn't want to be a healbot? Sorry, you can't play. Don't want to design the entire party mechanically in advance to make sure you have all the necessary bases covered? Sorry, you fail.

It's hard niche protection plus constraining design that demands that all the niches be filled. And filled in very specific ways that I object to. It's very MMO-esque--you need your tank, your healer, and your DPS. OR whatever.

And I've had parties of
* warlock/bard (melee, sorta)/wizard/rogue
* warlock (ranged)/rogue/monk/land druid
* wizard/druid
* fighter/rogue
* warlock/fighter/wizard/cleric (with the cleric only making about 1/3 sessions)

all work fine. 5e is way more forgiving. As a DM, I don't even have to work hard to find level-appropriate things for them to do (and fight), mostly without really modifying the guidance. Exactly what they do differs, but things go forward fine. PF2e, from what I've seen, doesn't have that flexibility. Either you have a "balanced"/all-niches-filled party or you're rewriting tons of monsters and situations to avoid TPKs/hard stops on level-appropriate fights and situations.

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 01:46 PM
I'm spinning it? What are you talking about?

I get that your real complaint about the sword is that it creates a weird special case in the AC calculation, and I know that there are plenty of other things like it (caltrops ignore deflection bonuses, for example). But you're still essentially presenting "you can have a magic sword that phases through armour" as if it's exclusively a bad thing. I'm not trying to dismiss your experiences, but I feel like there has to be more to it.

Pex
2023-02-03, 01:52 PM
It has a better skill system by far. It also has more rule support for downtime activities.


That's...an interesting take. Why do you like it so much?


How so? Please elaborate; I'm curious what it does better, and how it is better.

I'm reading the book now, and there aren't those dreaded DC tables for each skill. However, what they do provide are example difficulties. This thing is a Trained Skill. That thing is a Master Skill. They gives examples of tasks people of typical training level (untrained, trained, expert, master, legendary) can do. I haven't reach the page yet to know for sure, but from what I read it hinted there are suggested DCs to give based on training level. That to me is similar to 5E's Very Easy, Easy, Medium, Hard, Very Hard table. The Pathfinder rules did say the DM makes up the DC. However, unlike 5E not saying what task is Easy what task is Hard, Pathfinder tells the DM, as I said, this task is Trained, that task is Master. Climbing a tree is Athletics Expert. More difficult than I'm comfortable with, I'd want it Trained, but at least it's defined and I as a player know how to build my character for when climbing a tree is important. Climbing a tree is Athletics Expert, and it doesn't matter who is DM that day.

In some cases they do give defined DCs. They can be found in the Skill feats which provide specific specialty things you can do with a skill. Defined DCs can be a flat number or a check against someone else calculated target number such as their Will DC.

If you don't have Expert in a skill then you can't do Expert things, and so on for each level including Trained. No climbing trees for you if you don't have Athletics Expert. Class abilities/feats may allow you to try without that level. For example, a class ability could allow you to try Expert skills tasks when you are only Trained in it. Being Expert allows you to try Master tasks, and so on.

stoutstien
2023-02-03, 01:54 PM
I do like the bulk system and how it covers weight, size, and awkwardness of objects.

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 02:05 PM
No climbing trees for you if you don't have Athletics Expert.

I know the system doesn't need to cover absolutely everything, or necessarily get the things it does cover right, but...

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 02:08 PM
Never forget that the bar for what a character can accomplish in-game and the difficulty in performing the action is entirely determined by what Jason Buhlman (an out of shape, nearly 50 year old man) can do. (https://www.facebook.com/JasonBulmahn/posts/spent-a-part-of-the-morning-tying-my-mouse-to-my-hand-by-the-cord-and-figuring-o/647725701914359/)

Kurald Galain
2023-02-03, 02:09 PM
If you don't have Expert in a skill then you can't do Expert things, and so on for each level including Trained. No climbing trees for you if you don't have Athletics Expert. Class abilities/feats may allow you to try without that level. For example, a class ability could allow you to try Expert skills tasks when you are only Trained in it. Being Expert allows you to try Master tasks, and so on.
But wait, there's also traps and obstacles. If a trap requires, say, master-level thievery to disarm, then without master-level thievery you cannot do anything except set it off.

And the way the system works, you need to decide well in advance what you want to specialize in. Except for rogues, you can "master" two skills by level 9 (and you should), but you can only do that for the exact two skills you decided to "expert" in at level 3 and 5.

warty goblin
2023-02-03, 02:20 PM
If you don't have Expert in a skill then you can't do Expert things, and so on for each level including Trained. No climbing trees for you if you don't have Athletics Expert. Class abilities/feats may allow you to try without that level. For example, a class ability could allow you to try Expert skills tasks when you are only Trained in it. Being Expert allows you to try Master tasks, and so on.

Err, I've been climbing trees since I was like 7, and I guarantee you that 7 year old me was no Athletics Expert, I was a pretty normal kid. Like, unless we're talking about the legendary Greasebark Trees of the Fang jungle, wreathed in the deadly but beautiful Bloodsipper vines, climbing a climbable tree isn't that hard.

Zuras
2023-02-03, 02:21 PM
It dovetails nicely with a funny thought I had yesterday after posting that too, admittedly: a decade of playing Pathfinder has made me very good at writing process documents.

Perhaps the haters were right after all.

I mean’ if you consider people who would rather play 5e than Pathfinder “haters”, that might be part of the problem.

Pathfinder 1e has been around long enough, and has enough of an overlap with the 5e community, that practically anyone who plays 5e has tried Pathfinder or played with someone who has, so they basically know what Pathfinder is about, relative to 5e.

There is a significant mass of players who are neither particularly attracted to the depth of character build options, nor repelled by the complexity of various stacking modifiers and interacting features. I personally, for example, prefer 5e but would certainly switch to Pathfinder to play in-person with my current group rather than switching to on-line play with another group just to stick with the 5e system. Since 5e is super popular, though, and many of their friends like the simplicity of 5e, they’re not going to switch.

I imagine it’s frustrating as a Pathfinder fan that none of these theoretical potential players are interested in taking up Pathfinder for (to them) seemingly minor reasons. Calling the folks who don’t want to join your club haters seems a bit much though.

Ignimortis
2023-02-03, 02:24 PM
At the risk of derailing the conversation into musings on game design in general, I really don't enjoy "high level characters are very good at everything" mechanics like that. I want a character's effectiveness to come from the work they've put in training in their area of expertise, not just from looting dungeons and getting EXP. I also like the granularity of skill systems like 3.5 that let you decide how much you want to invest in a particular skill (though 3.5's choice of how many points to allocate - for some classes - and what skills exist leave some things to be desired).

The alternatives are twofold.
1) Don't let skills eclipse the die, and therefore the die is more important than character skill.
2) Let the skills eclipse the die, and also provide no support for characters who are not specializing in some skills. Then you end up either with generalists who cannot reliably beat any on-level challenges, specialists who are quite bad at everything beyond their specialization and cannot even attempt on-level challenges at all, or challenges that are far less potent than whatever specialists can achieve.

I'd rather have everyone keep playing the game, while letting characters be specialists in a few areas on top of that. Does that mean you are never really stuck without an answer to a situation? Possibly.

Granted, I prefer dicepool systems, where this usually is much less of an issue.


Just to make sure there's no disconnect, I mean things like traps that you literally can't detect if your class doesn't give you the perception proficiency level needed to detect it. It how you need master arcana or thievery or whatever for upper level hazards/haunts to be allowed to disarm them.

The autofailing because trained doesn't keep up with level based DC is a separate matter entirely. That's just low odds, not banned from participation.

Oh, traps. Haven't faces many of them thus far, so I was unaware of that part. Yes, I do dislike that much gating.

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 02:30 PM
I mean’ if you consider people who would rather play 5e than Pathfinder “haters”, that might be part of the problem.

'Tis but a humorous turn of phrase. I did actually get a serious chuckle out of the reflection that a lot of the skills I've developed playing Pathfinder (document construction and management, an eye for detail, research skills, etc.) are ones that have translated very well to my chosen profession. All that time spent unemployed and trolling the forums wasn't completely wasted after all! Probably.


I imagine it’s frustrating as a Pathfinder fan that none of these theoretical potential players are interested in taking up Pathfinder for (to them) seemingly minor reasons.

I actually...kinda don't care. Like it's nice if more people play PF but it doesn't really affect me any since I probably won't ever play with them. I have my own core group to play with and try whatever game we want.

skyth
2023-02-03, 02:32 PM
You know, one of the things that really turned me off the PF2 playtest was that a 1st level Ranger was more likely to starve to death than finding food using the survival skill in a forest...

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 02:43 PM
The big thing that convinced me that PF2e is not for me was seeing a story on Reddit about someone whose character was somehow rendered 'non-viable' because the GM told them that magic handwraps would only work on attacks with their fists, but "climbing a tree is athletics expert" is probably one of the worst things I've heard tbh.

That said, the PF2 SRD seems to suggest that the tree climbing rules are a bit more reasonable -- "typical tree" is trained, "low-branched tree" is untrained. Although it reads like you have to roll three times per round and I vaguely recall that there's no take 10 or similar help of any kind unless you invest into the skill?

Kurald Galain
2023-02-03, 02:50 PM
I vaguely recall that there's no take 10 or similar help of any kind unless you invest into the skill?

The assurance feat (for a specific skill) is required to take 10 (well, "take 8", really) with that skill; the upside is that this allows taking 8 even under stress.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 02:52 PM
The big thing that convinced me that PF2e is not for me was seeing a story on Reddit about someone whose character was somehow rendered 'non-viable' because the GM told them that magic handwraps would only work on attacks with their fists, but "climbing a tree is athletics expert" is probably one of the worst things I've heard tbh.

That said, the PF2 SRD seems to suggest that the tree climbing rules are a bit more reasonable -- "typical tree" is trained, "low-branched tree" is untrained. Although it reads like you have to roll three times per round and I vaguely recall that there's no take 10 or similar help of any kind unless you invest into the skill?

Rolling 3 times per round basically guarantees failure, even against low DCs. It's like the people who force tons of Stealth checks or any other "multiple rolls, any failure == overall failure" situation. Probability is harsh that way.


The assurance feat (for a specific skill) is required to take 10 (well, "take 8", really) with that skill; the upside is that this allows taking 8 even under stress.

And this tells me that the system doesn't even have the out that 5e does, which is "lots of things shouldn't take a roll at all, and if you have the time/aren't under stress, you can automatically succeed at anything possible[1] by taking 10x as long". Which means it really does (or seems to) want you to roll for every little darn thing. As someone said, the Master Shoe-tying feat is required to not trip over your loose shoelaces 1/X times.

[1] usually interpreted as "could succeed on a 20".

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 03:00 PM
Rolling 3 times per round basically guarantees failure, even against low DCs. It's like the people who force tons of Stealth checks or any other "multiple rolls, any failure == overall failure" situation. Probability is harsh that way.

It's just something I saw while skimming the climbing rules in the SRD, so I don't really want to be too harsh on it until I have a better idea of how it really works. I know 3e did require a roll every round, but it at least had ways to mitigate that that anyone could use, and every two in-game seconds is just beyond insane.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 03:05 PM
It's just something I saw while skimming the climbing rules in the SRD, so I don't really want to be too harsh on it until I have a better idea of how it really works. I know 3e did require a roll every round, but it at least had ways to mitigate that that anyone could use, and every two in-game seconds is just beyond insane.

Yeah. I agree. Plus action cost, most likely.

---------

General question--does switching movement modes in PF2e (almost wrote 4e[1]) mean spending an action? That is, if you want to walk 5' and then jump 10', is that 2 actions? or only 1.

[1] which is apt because PF2e really sounds like "4e, PF edition, with some lessons learned from 3e and 5e."

Satinavian
2023-02-03, 03:07 PM
And the way the system works, you need to decide well in advance what you want to specialize in. Except for rogues, you can "master" two skills by level 9 (and you should), but you can only do that for the exact two skills you decided to "expert" in at level 3 and 5.Yes, every character should have at least as many skill increases as a rogue. And more regular feats.

Kurald Galain
2023-02-03, 03:08 PM
General question--does switching movement modes in PF2e (almost wrote 4e[1]) mean spending an action? That is, if you want to walk 5' and then jump 10', is that 2 actions? or only 1.
Yes, jumping in PF2 is its own distinct action and not a part of a regular move.

Stonehead
2023-02-03, 03:10 PM
I've never understood how single-digit addition always gets called "complicated math." I mean, I'm not going to tell anyone else what to play. Dislike whatever you want, for whatever reason you want to. But adding 3 numbers in your head instead of adding 2 is not what I'd consider to be a massive jump in complexity.

Feat choices? Sure, that's a complexity jump. But adding numbers? I don't get it.

JNAProductions
2023-02-03, 03:12 PM
I've never understood how single-digit addition always gets called "complicated math." I mean, I'm not going to tell anyone else what to play. Dislike whatever you want, for whatever reason you want to. But adding 3 numbers in your head instead of adding 2 is not what I'd consider to be a massive jump in complexity.

Feat choices? Sure, that's a complexity jump. But adding numbers? I don't get it.

It's not the math itself-it's the conditionals behind it.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 03:14 PM
I've never understood how single-digit addition always gets called "complicated math." I mean, I'm not going to tell anyone else what to play. Dislike whatever you want, for whatever reason you want to. But adding 3 numbers in your head instead of adding 2 is not what I'd consider to be a massive jump in complexity.

Feat choices? Sure, that's a complexity jump. But adding numbers? I don't get it.

As I've said before (and others have), it's not the literal process of adding the numbers that's complicated. It's deciding what numbers to add to what numbers and keeping track of all the various sources and durations and conditionals.

It's like saying that doing your taxes is "just adding and subtracting numbers, so why do people complain" when the big difficulty and annoyance is figuring out what numbers to add and subtract.

Rynjin
2023-02-03, 03:16 PM
The big thing that convinced me that PF2e is not for me was seeing a story on Reddit about someone whose character was somehow rendered 'non-viable' because the GM told them that magic handwraps would only work on attacks with their fists, but "climbing a tree is athletics expert" is probably one of the worst things I've heard tbh.

That sounds about right. By the time we had finally bullied Paizo into making a handwraps item (https://aonprd.com/EquipmentWeaponsDisplay.aspx?ItemName=Handwraps) they STILL made sure to specify they only worked with unarmed attacks made with your hands.

Fun? Never heard of it. - The Paizo Design team (probably).

Though TBF, the 2e Handwraps (https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=441) only IMPLY that (by repeated mention of "fists", "claws", etc.) instead of outright stating it.

Zuras
2023-02-03, 03:31 PM
It's not the math itself-it's the conditionals behind it.

I mean, sometimes it’s the math. Adding 30 different +/- modifiers that could be 1, 0, or -1 is the very definition of complicated. It’s not complex, but that doesn’t make it easy.

JNAProductions
2023-02-03, 03:34 PM
I mean, sometimes it’s the math. Adding 30 different +/- modifiers that could be 1, 0, or -1 is the very definition of complicated. It’s not complex, but that doesn’t make it easy.

Okay, much as I'll rag on 3.P for being overly complicated, I don't think you're gonna be dealing with that many at the table. Between sessions, maybe, but not at the table.
And I'm okay with more complexity in creation and level ups, since you have ample time to handle it then.

Amidus Drexel
2023-02-03, 03:42 PM
The alternatives are twofold.
1) Don't let skills eclipse the die, and therefore the die is more important than character skill.
2) Let the skills eclipse the die, and also provide no support for characters who are not specializing in some skills. Then you end up either with generalists who cannot reliably beat any on-level challenges, specialists who are quite bad at everything beyond their specialization and cannot even attempt on-level challenges at all, or challenges that are far less potent than whatever specialists can achieve.

The longer I type up my response, the less I agree with this in general. Not only do I think it's possible to do all of the above in a single skill system, but I also think you're missing the space in-between where neither die rolls nor skill investment fully eclipse the other.

My personal preferences for a skill system (all of these things make intuitive sense to me as modeling the fiction, and work fine from a gameplay perspective as well):
1. Random chance or circumstantial bonuses should be the deciding factor in peer vs. peer contests, or when someone is pushing the edge of their ability (regardless of how skilled they are).
2. Specialists should have a distinct, genuine advantage over generalists, who should have a distinct, genuine advantage over someone with no investment whatsoever, regardless of level.
3. Specialists should almost always succeed at things that are only moderately difficult or easier.
4. Generalists should basically always have a chance in things they've invested in, unless they're trying something unreasonably hard.
5. There should be things that are too hard for an untrained character to even attempt.

There's a skill system that I quite like that accomplishes all of those things (I'm sure there are more than one). It's 3.5's (and to a large extent, PF1's). We don't have to choose between "everyone scales up everything as they level", "the dice decide everything", and "the dice are useless".


As I've said before (and others have), it's not the literal process of adding the numbers that's complicated. It's deciding what numbers to add to what numbers and keeping track of all the various sources and durations and conditionals.

Agreed. As a DM, I've found the conditionals are a lot easier to track (I'm usually in charge of those conditionals, after all) than durations. Fortunately my party only has one spellcaster right now, but once there are more than two or three different duration spell effects happening simultaneously I start to lose track.

This conversation has definitely given me some appreciation for 5e's implementation of concentration, even though as a player I still find it a little annoying that you can't stack up spell effects easily. :smalltongue:


Okay, much as I'll rag on 3.P for being overly complicated, I don't think you're gonna be dealing with that many at the table. Between sessions, maybe, but not at the table.
And I'm okay with more complexity in creation and level ups, since you have ample time to handle it then.

In my 3.5 game, I think the most conditional modifiers we've had simultaneously were flanking (+2 to hit) + charge modifiers (+2 to hit, -2 AC), or the one time the party fighter got hit by a ray of enfeeblement and went from a light load to a heavy load and had to recalculate some stuff between turns. It's rare we have anything crazier than a single +2 or -2.

Kane0
2023-02-03, 04:01 PM
My favourite example is 'I hit it with my sword'

3.PF: Miss Chance, AC (the correct type), damage resistance, damage reduction, critial confirmation, crit range and multiplier.
Potentially dozens of features/items/spells/feats/conditions apply modifiers.

5e: AC, damage resistance, rolling a 20 double your dice.
Total number of features/items/spells/feats can usually be counted on one hand but at most two, everything else is advantage or disadvantage

Not sure what PF2 is exactly like, so can't comment.

Willie the Duck
2023-02-03, 04:02 PM
I get that your real complaint about the sword is that it creates a weird special case in the AC calculation, and I know that there are plenty of other things like it (caltrops ignore deflection bonuses, for example). But you're still essentially presenting "you can have a magic sword that phases through armour" as if it's exclusively a bad thing. I'm not trying to dismiss your experiences, but I feel like there has to be more to it.

No I am not presenting that, essentially or otherwise. I didn't even focus specifically on the brilliant energy weapon attack moreso than the flat-footed one or the touch-attack one (or the monk one that I apparently got full-on wrong). I am not presenting having a magic sword that phases through armour as a bad thing*, I am presenting the instance of weird special cases in the AC calculation, of which brilliant energy weapons are a singular example, as a reason why individuals might find PF to have a bunch of fiddly numbers (as was germane to the conversation when I put it forward). Of course there is 'more to [magic sword that phases through armor],' but if I were to have brought them up, that would be when I would be making this about brilliant energy weapons, instead of special cases in AC calculations. Now, if you are done mischaracterizing what I said, my positions, and my focus, can we please rejoin the discussion with everyone else?
*the character in-game would obviously love it, and the player would love it but potentially not love the implementation of the mechanics. Something we can lovingly discuss in a thread focused on favorite or least-favorite magic items


Err, I've been climbing trees since I was like 7, and I guarantee you that 7 year old me was no Athletics Expert, I was a pretty normal kid. Like, unless we're talking about the legendary Greasebark Trees of the Fang jungle, wreathed in the deadly but beautiful Bloodsipper vines, climbing a climbable tree isn't that hard.

It seems like perhaps there was a missed opportunity to include multiple levels, with expert only being needed for those Greasebark trees. That or 'Expert' is simply a misplaced moniker (kind of like 5e's "deadly" encounters). There are some activities I can see having a 'must be this [skilled] to ride' sign, but I think it'd be mostly along the lines of 'must be an expert alchemist before being able to distill extract-of-prismatic-lotus-blossom potions' or 'must be a triple grand master weaponsmith before you can make a Mirasmunamcguffin sword.' Gating climbing behind expertise I'd only want for something like the 3e Epic Level Handbook's shenanigans (run up a waterfall, or something).

aimlessPolymath
2023-02-03, 04:49 PM
Of note is that in the Athletics skill on AoN, Climb is listed as an untrained action, and:

Sample Climb Tasks
Untrained ladder, steep slope, low-branched tree
Trained rigging, rope, typical tree
Expert wall with small handholds and footholds
Master ceiling with handholds and footholds, rock wall
Legendary smooth surface

Going by the Simple DCs table, it'd be DC 10 or 15 to climb a tree.

Untrained 10
Trained 15
Expert 20
Master 30
Legendary 40

The only Athletics action that requires training to attempt is Disarm. I'm not sure where the "climbing a tree requires you to be Expert in Athletics' idea is coming from.

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 04:56 PM
Of note is that in the Athletics skill on AoN, Climb is listed as an untrained action.

OK, so when a "sample task" lists something as trained, they mean in terms of the DC, not the minimum proficiency to attempt. That makes sense, but I still feel like I should dock them some points over this.

I still haven't figured out what the game does to mitigate potentially needing 3 checks/round to climb or swim, although I see they do both list conditions that don't require a check.

Luccan
2023-02-03, 05:04 PM
Of note is that in the Athletics skill on AoN, Climb is listed as an untrained action, and:


Going by the Simple DCs table, it'd be DC 10 or 15 to climb a tree.


The only Athletics action that requires training to attempt is Disarm. I'm not sure where the "climbing a tree requires you to be Expert in Athletics' idea is coming from.

So PF2 does pretty much uses the same Easy/Medium/Hard etc. skill DC system as 5e? That's hilarious

aimlessPolymath
2023-02-03, 05:04 PM
I still haven't figured out what the game does to mitigate potentially needing 3 checks/round to climb or swim, although I see they do both list conditions that don't require a check.

To be fair, here's the comparable line from 3.5.


Action

Climbing is part of movement, so it’s generally part of a move action (and may be combined with other types of movement in a move action). Each move action that includes any climbing requires a separate Climb check. Catching yourself or another falling character doesn’t take an action.

3.5 does let you bucket together move actions using the Run action to make one check, I guess?

Zuras
2023-02-03, 05:18 PM
Okay, much as I'll rag on 3.P for being overly complicated, I don't think you're gonna be dealing with that many at the table. Between sessions, maybe, but not at the table.
And I'm okay with more complexity in creation and level ups, since you have ample time to handle it then.

The big issue to me is that it’s not really optional fiddly bits that you can just ditch if they get too cumbersome. Star Fleet Battles has a lot of fiddly math (especially in the electronic warfare/sensor jamming rules) that you can just completely skip. Even players who like the complexity may drop the rules for larger fleet engagements.

Most highly detailed RPGs don’t just let you abstract whole levels of detail away like that without disrupting balance or leaning hard on the GM for adjudication.

lesser_minion
2023-02-03, 05:24 PM
To be fair, here's the comparable line from 3.5.

3e's system for athletics isn't amazing, but you can often take 10. For climbing and swimming, the effect is that you either succeed without rolling or you're in serious trouble (depending on how far you have to travel).

It looks like PF2e makes it impossible to fall off of a ladder unless you have a strength penalty?

Regardless, while from what I've seen the rules don't have as much of the 4e "what the hell even is this?" feel, there are still hints of the paragon tier lockpicking issue (in 4e, locks were listed as "Heroic", "Paragon", and "Epic". People read this to mean that the DC depended on the tier of the character picking the lock).

Kurald Galain
2023-02-03, 05:54 PM
OK, so when a "sample task" lists something as trained, they mean in terms of the DC, not the minimum proficiency to attempt. That makes sense, but I still feel like I should dock them some points over this.

The weird thing is that a "master" only gets a +2 higher bonus than the "expert"; so the master isn't noticeably better at expert-level tasks, and neither is the expert noticeably worse at master-level tasks.

PF2 uses a lot of wordcount to rule that (aside from gatekeeping certain traps/obstacles, and the largely-useless skill feats) there's no particular benefit to becoming an expert or master; in terms of passing skill DCs, you're at the mercy of the random number gods.

RandomPeasant
2023-02-03, 06:11 PM
As I've said before (and others have), it's not the literal process of adding the numbers that's complicated. It's deciding what numbers to add to what numbers and keeping track of all the various sources and durations and conditionals.

How many sources and durations and conditionals does a character actually have? Like, what is the specific class or character concept that you think produces something that is substantially more complicated in 3e than in 5e.


There's a skill system that I quite like that accomplishes all of those things (I'm sure there are more than one). It's 3.5's (and to a large extent, PF1's). We don't have to choose between "everyone scales up everything as they level", "the dice decide everything", and "the dice are useless".

I largely agree, but it is worth pointing out that if you do this type of scaling you end up pushing out people who don't actively invest. And that can be good (it is not, I think, particularly desirable or necessary for everyone to be able to roll Knowledge-type checks effectively), but it also has issues. The big one is stealth, where a lot of stealth-type encounters really rely on the whole party having numbers that are at least in a ballpark.


3.PF: Miss Chance, AC (the correct type), damage resistance, damage reduction, critial confirmation, crit range and multiplier.

It seems somewhat dishonest to count "damage resistance" and "damage reduction" as different things.


Potentially dozens of features/items/spells/feats/conditions apply modifiers.

This is just saying "the system has more content in it". There's nothing stopping 5e from having lots of class features or items or spells or feats that can add modifiers to your attack, it simply has less stuff in it. But, to get back to the actual objection, it doesn't have that much stuff for an individual character, or for a low-level character, or for the types of characters new players are likely to play. It is absolutely true that you can build a Duskblade/Warblade/Crusader with a whole mess of random feats that will have a lot going on in 3e. It is absolutely not true that you need to do that or that you will inevitably do that or anything like that. You can also just play a Fighter that does not have any contingent bonuses to speak of and simply makes attacks. Indeed, that is the character that far more new players will make.

animorte
2023-02-03, 06:46 PM
How many sources and durations and conditionals does a character actually have? Like, what is the specific class or character concept that you think produces something that is substantially more complicated in 3e than in 5e.

I just started a 3.5e campaign again since probably 5 years. We get into the first combat and I suddenly remember... Everybody is throwing up something like: +3 Str, +2 if flanking, +1 bless, +1 masterwork, oh don't forget +2 from my aid another, and I get +4 to concentration on the next spell only if it's cast on the defensive.

Not to mention the skills. Skill rank (possible half point, round down if cross-class) + relevant ability mod + 2 if you have 5 ranks in other specific skill + 2 aid another (but only if the one helping has ranks in said skill as well).

I mean, I've had plenty of fun hunting down the numbers as making sure I put them all in the right place and adding it up for massive amounts of bonus, etc. Sometimes it can be a bit time consuming though, even if you have them all added up ready to go at a glance, there's plenty of specific circumstances in which this +2 or that +1 is not applicable. I mean, it really depends on how strict the DM is and how much system mastery is prevalent at the table, I guess.

Pex
2023-02-03, 06:55 PM
If only the pf2e skill system didn't also come with proficiency gates on even having the chance to make certain checks or clear hazards past level 5 or 6 I might like it more. Auto failing a check because it's not one of your 3 boosted skills or because your class is on a bad perception track isn't my idea of good design.

Look at it from the other view as it is in 5E. People complain a barbarian can succeed a Knowledge Arcana check when the wizard fails. The DM has to arbitrarily say the barbarian can't roll, with some people criticizing the DM does that wanting the barbarian to get the roll. Having it both ways doesn't work. Pathfinder made its decision. You need to be this high to ride on skills. You don't have to like it, but at least there is an official rule on the matter, and Pathfinder is not stingy on the number of skills players may have. No character can do everything, and no character is supposed to be able to do everything, except perhaps bards as a class feature jack of all trades.

PhoenixPhyre
2023-02-03, 07:05 PM
I just started a 3.5e campaign again since probably 5 years. We get into the first combat and I suddenly remember... Everybody is throwing up something like: +3 Str, +2 if flanking, +1 bless, +1 masterwork, oh don't forget +2 from my aid another, and I get +4 to concentration on the next spell only if it's cast on the defensive.

Not to mention the skills. Skill rank (possible half point, round down if cross-class) + relevant ability mod + 2 if you have 5 ranks in other specific skill + 2 aid another (but only if the one helping has ranks in said skill as well).

I mean, I've had plenty of fun hunting down the numbers as making sure I put them all in the right place and adding it up for massive amounts of bonus, etc. Sometimes it can be a bit time consuming though, even if you have them all added up ready to go at a glance, there's plenty of specific circumstances in which this +2 or that +1 is not applicable. I mean, it really depends on how strict the DM is and how much system mastery is prevalent at the table, I guess.

Yeah. And 5e has a strong policy of not doing stacking numeric bonuses. So even if you add more possible sources, they don't generally stack. Literally the only ones that aren't completely static are
* Shield (the spell), which lasts for 1 round and bumps your AC by +5.
* GWM/SS, which are 1 turn toggles (-5 to attack, +10 to damage).
* Shield of Faith, a +2 AC bonus
* Cover (+2/+5 bonus to AC)
* Heavy Armor Master (-3 to specific types of incoming damage).

And those are considered disfavored and are being reworked for OneD&D.

Everything else is one of
* completely static (fighting styles, ability modifiers, armor, weapons) and thus rolled into your base modifier
* advantage/disadvantage (which doesn't stack)
* resistance/vulnerability/immunity...which not only don't stack but are 1/2x, 2x, or 0x modifiers, not static numbers.
* or bonus dice (which you have to use consciously)

So basically you have 1 thing that applies to everyone (cover), two spells (one of which is concentration), and two feats that can actually provide stacking modifiers. And those are on the chopping block (for good reason). And note those are not actually conditional other than "active/not active" (ok, cover is kinda conditional, but also often ignored). They're either on for an entire turn worth of attacks or they're not.

So even if the total content of 5e grows, the basic philosophy means you'll rarely get more stacking bonuses.

On the other hand, everything in 3e is a stacking (or sometimes not, read the individual effect and probably the errata and several FAQs) numeric modifier. Most of which are conditional on a lot of things. Without advantage and without the streamlined resistance/vulnerability, that's the only tool feats have. And there are lots that stack in...interesting ways. Or conflict with each other (if you do X, you lose the bonus from Y) or are variable (compare 3e's power attack to 5e's GWM equivalent).

aimlessPolymath
2023-02-03, 07:09 PM
Look at it from the other view as it is in 5E. People complain a barbarian can succeed a Knowledge Arcana check when the wizard fails. The DM has to arbitrarily say the barbarian can't roll, with some people criticizing the DM does that wanting the barbarian to get the roll. Having it both ways doesn't work. Pathfinder made its decision. You need to be this high to ride on skills. You don't have to like it, but at least there is an official rule on the matter, and Pathfinder is not stingy on the number of skills players may have. No character can do everything, and no character is supposed to be able to do everything, except perhaps bards as a class feature jack of all trades.

The only thing you really take a penalty on for is not getting to add your level to untrained skills, and some actions (for Athletics, Disarm) you need at minimum training- Recall Knowledge is not one of them, and it uses simple DCs. If a task is described as Expert in the 'sample tasks' in the skill section, that's generally a reference to the Simple DCs (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=552)

If you're referring to the 'minimum proficiency' rules-

Sometimes succeeding at a particular task requires a character to have a specific proficiency rank in addition to a success on the check. Locks and traps often require a certain proficiency rank to successfully use the Pick a Lock or Disable a Device actions of Thievery. A character whose proficiency rank is lower than what’s listed can attempt the check, but they can’t succeed. You can apply similar minimum proficiencies to other tasks. You might decide, for example, that a particular arcane theorem requires training in Arcana to understand. An untrained barbarian can’t succeed at the check, but she can still attempt it if she wants—after all, she needs to have a chance to critically fail and get erroneous information!

For checks that require a minimum proficiency, keep the following guidelines in mind. A 2nd-level or lower task should almost never require expert proficiency, a 6th-level or lower task should almost never require master proficiency, and a 14th-level or lower task should almost never require legendary proficiency. If they did, no character of the appropriate level could succeed.
In the case of locks/traps, that sort of thing usually gets rolled into the defined DC of a hazard, for example:
Disable Religion DC 29 (master) to exorcise the spirit or Diplomacy DC 31 (expert) to talk it down (https://2e.aonprd.com/Hazards.aspx?ID=12)
Everything else in the book is just a regular DC, no requirements.

Proficiency requirements are not meant to apply to general skill checks without a specific reason.

Pex
2023-02-03, 07:20 PM
Err, I've been climbing trees since I was like 7, and I guarantee you that 7 year old me was no Athletics Expert, I was a pretty normal kid. Like, unless we're talking about the legendary Greasebark Trees of the Fang jungle, wreathed in the deadly but beautiful Bloodsipper vines, climbing a climbable tree isn't that hard.

For sure. I don't like that it's Expert either, but I like it better than in 5E having to play Mother May I with the DM to climb a tree.

Correction noted. It's easier than Expert.

aimlessPolymath
2023-02-03, 07:23 PM
For sure. I don't like that it's Expert either, but I like it better than in 5E having to play Mother May I with the DM to climb a tree.

Where are you reading that it's expert? From AoN (https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=3), Climb is an 'untrained' action, and even the sample tasks for Climb say:

Sample Climb Tasks
Untrained ladder, steep slope, low-branched tree
Trained rigging, rope, typical tree
Expert wall with small handholds and footholds
Master ceiling with handholds and footholds, rock wall
Legendary smooth surface
It's DC 10-15, going by Simple DCs (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=552).

Pex
2023-02-03, 07:41 PM
So PF2 does pretty much uses the same Easy/Medium/Hard etc. skill DC system as 5e? That's hilarious

Yes, but they tell you what the difficulty of asks are instead of DM make it up. Players know how hard it is to climb a tree. It doesn't matter who is DM that day.


Where are you reading that it's expert? From AoN (https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=3), Climb is an 'untrained' action, and even the sample tasks for Climb say:

It's DC 10-15, going by Simple DCs (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=552).

It's possible I remembered it wrong.

Just checked my own copy.

Yep, I did. Mea culpa. Feel better now. Error on specific example. Point stands on general point. The game tells you the difficulty of tasks. It provides examples, which is all I wanted from 5E.

aimlessPolymath
2023-02-03, 07:48 PM
So PF2 does pretty much uses the same Easy/Medium/Hard etc. skill DC system as 5e? That's hilarious

Sorta. There's basically two types of checks:
-Level-based or opposed checks where you might be making a check against a foe, or a hazard or trap with level-equivalency. DC is either level-based or based on the character (ex. make a diplomacy check against someone's Will DC)

Other than that, yes, tasks are labeled as Untrained, Trained, Expert, Master, or Legendary, in rough 'tiers' of difficulty. Examples given in the book, for what difficulty different examples might be, etc. it's less a labeling of 'how hard is this for your average bounded-accuracy character' and more 'you must be roughly this tall to ride'- note that those labels correspond to proficiency categories.

Pex
2023-02-03, 07:57 PM
The only thing you really take a penalty on for is not getting to add your level to untrained skills, and some actions (for Athletics, Disarm) you need at minimum training- Recall Knowledge is not one of them, and it uses simple DCs. If a task is described as Expert in the 'sample tasks' in the skill section, that's generally a reference to the Simple DCs (https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=552)

If you're referring to the 'minimum proficiency' rules-

In the case of locks/traps, that sort of thing usually gets rolled into the defined DC of a hazard, for example:
Disable Religion DC 29 (master) to exorcise the spirit or Diplomacy DC 31 (expert) to talk it down (https://2e.aonprd.com/Hazards.aspx?ID=12)
Everything else in the book is just a regular DC, no requirements.

Proficiency requirements are not meant to apply to general skill checks without a specific reason.

By coincidence I've been reading the rules for the first time as of this discussion. If the skill use rules are more efficient than what I understood all the better and furthers why I like it more than the 5E skill system.

Psyren
2023-02-03, 08:08 PM
The whole point of touch AC was to make up for spellcasters (including many spellcasting monsters) having lower physical stats and lower proficiency with their attack rolls with magical attacks. If you instead base magic attacks on mental stats and full proficiency then there's no reason to have a different AC number for those.

RandomPeasant
2023-02-03, 08:15 PM
I just started a 3.5e campaign again since probably 5 years. We get into the first combat and I suddenly remember... Everybody is throwing up something like: +3 Str, +2 if flanking, +1 bless, +1 masterwork, oh don't forget +2 from my aid another, and I get +4 to concentration on the next spell only if it's cast on the defensive.

Like half of those are static. You don't need to figure out if your weapon is masterwork on the fly, and unless you are specifically a Barbarian your strength is just whatever it is. So the comparison is that, in a 5e game, you would instead be rolling an extra 1d4 and have to track Advantage and Disadvantage instead of some +2s. That's just not any less complicated.


(or sometimes not, read the individual effect and probably the errata and several FAQs)

No. Not "probably". Almost never read the errata and several FAQs. Seriously, go open a 3.5 book. Pick a random feat or class feature in it. Does it require you to look at the errata? Does it require you to look at a FAQ? No! Most of them don't. You just remember the ones that do because those are the ones that people argue about on the internet. Lots of people have strong opinions about how polymorph does or does not work, because it genuinely involves like a dozen layers of rules. And that's a valid criticism. Nothing should be as complicated as polymorph is. But the modal feat is not like that. The modal feat is like Communicator from Complete Arcane which straightforwardly gives you a list of abilities with clearly defined usage limits. The abilities themselves are uncomplicated. You can just take it, and then you can do a couple of magic things. It's just that no one argues about what Communicator does because there's nothing to argue about.


Without advantage and without the streamlined resistance/vulnerability, that's the only tool feats have.

Other than, you know, the static bonuses that you have just admitted 5e also does and which plenty of feats operate by. Or giving people genuinely novel abilities, which many feats also do. Let's go back to Communicator for a moment, because it is surrounded by two other feats: Chain Spell and Cooperative Spell. Go take a look at them. They are, I will grant, much more complicated than Communicator is. But it does not seem to me that the complexity is incidental, so any ability of 5e to avoid it is accomplished by not having those feats, not being mechanically simpler in any fundamental sense.

Keltest
2023-02-03, 08:22 PM
I would like to point out, again, that the overwhelming response from the pro-pathfinder crowd here has not been to try and highlight how the more complex system can be good, but rather to say that our (the people who dont care for 3.5/PF) perspective is wrong, our opinions are invalid and in some cases to insist that we are simply inventing criticisms.

So that would be why people asking if I would like to try Pathfinder actively drives me away from Pathfinder.

warty goblin
2023-02-03, 08:30 PM
The whole point of touch AC was to make up for spellcasters (including many spellcasting monsters) having lower physical stats and lower proficiency with their attack rolls with magical attacks. If you instead base magic attacks on mental stats and full proficiency then there's no reason to have a different AC number for those.

I never liked melee touch attacks because it sounds like you're reaching out and poking somebody. Which, you know, reaching out and poking a big pissed off orc with a worryingly large axe seems fraught. Certainly harder than poking him with, say, a spear.

Yeah I know that's not what a melee touch attack is, but it sure sounds like it.

Keltest
2023-02-03, 08:41 PM
I never liked melee touch attacks because it sounds like you're reaching out and poking somebody. Which, you know, reaching out and poking a big pissed off orc with a worryingly large axe seems fraught. Certainly harder than poking him with, say, a spear.

Yeah I know that's not what a melee touch attack is, but it sure sounds like it.

From my understanding, thats not entirely inaccurate. The point is youre coming in contact with them and then letting a rider do an effect rather than trying to actually physically damage them.

It doesnt have to be as undignified as a simple poke, but it can be.

Psyren
2023-02-03, 09:01 PM
I never liked melee touch attacks because it sounds like you're reaching out and poking somebody. Which, you know, reaching out and poking a big pissed off orc with a worryingly large axe seems fraught. Certainly harder than poking him with, say, a spear.

Yeah I know that's not what a melee touch attack is, but it sure sounds like it.

I think you might be reading "melee touch attack" a bit too literally. Your hand is coming pretty close to the orc, but that doesn't mean you're physically poking it with your finger or weapon; the spell energy itself is what ultimately makes contact, which is why your armor and shield don't matter but dodge and deflection do. Your finger might even make contact after the energy does, which explain how you're able to do it (i.e. their shock allows you to "complete the circuit.")

For example, here is the art for the melee touch spell Belker Claws https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/945934606056685591/1071243327317491733/image.png in which the caster brings their hand close to the target and then the energy reaches out to siphon the target's life force.

Kane0
2023-02-03, 09:14 PM
It seems somewhat dishonest to count "damage resistance" and "damage reduction" as different things.

This is just saying "the system has more content in it". There's nothing stopping 5e from having lots of class features or items or spells or feats that can add modifiers to your attack, it simply has less stuff in it.

But, to get back to the actual objection, it doesn't have that much stuff for an individual character, or for a low-level character, or for the types of characters new players are likely to play.

Because they are. You could have one, or the other, or both. In 5e there is resistance (half damage), vulnerability (double damage) and immunity (no damage), and it applies per damage type.

Yes, but also no. 5e uses things like Concentration, Attunement and Advantage to deliberately cut down on what you can possibly have even if you say enabled Gestalting and handed out free feats in a monty haul campaign. 3.PF expects you to pick up all these whings with WBL, stacking long duration buffs, etc.

But fair point. Just because the extra complexity is possible doesnt mean its guaranteed to occur, or even negatively affect your experience if it does. It did for me, but your mileage may vary.

RandomPeasant
2023-02-03, 09:32 PM
I would like to point out, again, that the overwhelming response from the pro-pathfinder crowd here has not been to try and highlight how the more complex system can be good, but rather to say that our (the people who dont care for 3.5/PF) perspective is wrong, our opinions are invalid and in some cases to insist that we are simply inventing criticisms.

So that would be why people asking if I would like to try Pathfinder actively drives me away from Pathfinder.

If I said that 5e was bad because it used dicepools instead of d20s, would you feel compelled to explain why dicepools were a good fit for D&D and how they actually made the system better, or would you (entirely correctly) point out that 5e does not use dicepools and my objection is, at best, a massive mischaracterization of Advantage and Disadvantage?

Because that's how a lot of these objections sound from the perspective of someone who plays 3e. I think there are valid points to make about complexity in 3e. The system does not have good tools for guiding new players to specific classes that fit their preferences. That's bad. But the badness it results in is "people default to stuff and miss out on things they might enjoy", not "people meticulously read every option and develop a robust framework for evaluating them" as people seem to be implying (indeed, if you are the sort of person who does that, I am pretty confident 3e is a better fit for you than 5e). Similarly, I think there's a valid point to make about the ways that the system doesn't do a good job of signposting what classes are more complex, or making sure that complexity is aligned between build and play in ways that make sense (it is, for instance, pretty dumb that high-op martials take a whole bunch of work to build but end up with one button to press). But these are not the criticisms people make, or seem to be making, when they talk about complexity. It is simply not true that there are overwhelmingly more mechanics you need to learn to get started with 3e. It is not the case that the modal 3e option is filled with nested conditionals and cross-references and ambiguous rules.

I think, to be charitable, the argument many people are advancing for 5e is that they prefer a system that does less stuff and has less things in it. And that's a fine preference to have. You can want that, and if you want that 3e is not a good system for you. But the argument is presented as "3e is unnecessarily complex" when the reality is that it is necessarily complex because it allows you to do things you simply cannot do in 5e and could not do without turning the system into something that was comparably complex.


Because they are. You could have one, or the other, or both. In 5e there is resistance (half damage), vulnerability (double damage) and immunity (no damage), and it applies per damage type.

"This creature takes less damage from fire" and "this creature takes less damage from non-slashing" are mathematically the same operation.


Yes, but also no. 5e uses things like Concentration, Attunement and Advantage to deliberately cut down on what you can possibly have even if you say enabled Gestalting and handed out free feats in a monty haul campaign. 3.PF expects you to pick up all these whings with WBL, stacking long duration buffs, etc.

The stuff you are expected to pick up with WBL in 3e is all stuff that is just passively on all the time. Unless you are regularly jumping into and out of AMFs, you don't need to re-calc the bonuses you get from your cloak of resistance and magic sword and so on. I just don't agree that 3e "expects" you to stack long duration buffs. That's certainly a thing you can do, but again if you have this discussion in the 3e forum about 3e specifically, the faction that is pro-5e here insists at length that you are not at all expected to do things like Persistomancy and that it is in fact abusing the system to employ them.

animorte
2023-02-03, 09:49 PM
So the comparison is that, in a 5e game, you would instead be rolling an extra 1d4 and have to track Advantage and Disadvantage instead of some +2s. That's just not any less complicated.
You just explained why it is though. Add an extra die roll or two instead of wondering whether or not these particular modifiers are relevant. I mean, we could also discuss two-weapon fighting where you need a -2/-4 and then Str = 3/1.5 (round down)...

Like I said, I didn't mind it too much, but outright claiming it's the same level of complexity assumes a lack of experience with at least one of the systems.

I already touched on skills as well. 5e is proficiency and maybe expertise (then dis/adv) where 3.5 is max skill rank = level +3, +mod, +2 feat, +2 for ranks in other skills, rounding down for half skill ranks.

RandomPeasant
2023-02-03, 10:35 PM
Add an extra die roll or two instead of wondering whether or not these particular modifiers are relevant.

And you don't need to wonder if the die rolls are relevant? Seriously, how is "bless gives you a d4 bonus die" possibly any less complicated than "bless gives you a +1 bonus". It is the same effect applying at the same times, it's just that now it's variable. That's more complexity, not less.


I mean, we could also discuss two-weapon fighting where you need a -2/-4 and then Str = 3/1.5 (round down)...

You certainly could, but that is again a static series of adjustments. I will grant you that a character that swaps between TWF, two-hander, and sword-and-board in 3e is pretty complicated and involves tracking a lot of different bonuses, but such a character is profoundly optional to play, and indeed I have never heard of someone building such a thing.


I already touched on skills as well. 5e is proficiency and maybe expertise (then dis/adv) where 3.5 is max skill rank = level +3, +mod, +2 feat, +2 for ranks in other skills, rounding down for half skill ranks.

But, with the rare exception of ability damage, none of those bonuses are in any way conditional. That's all stuff you can do way in advance. If you want to make the argument "it is massively more complex to add up five numbers than two numbers", sure, you can make that argument. But the argument that's been suggested is that 3e involves a bunch of conditional modifiers that make it hard to understand what is happening, but the evidence you are presenting does not demonstrate that. Once you have accumulated your 5 ranks in Bluff for a Diplomacy synergy bonus, you have that bonus forever. There will never be a circumstance where you need to ask yourself "does my synergy bonus apply", and so it is not evidence for the proposition that 3e is riddled with conditionally-applicable bonuses.

There are totally arguments you can make here. I think "skill checks vary enormously because 3e contains a lot of options and which ones you choose dramatically changes your outcomes" is a valid critique. But that's a different critique from "there are a lot of conditional bonuses", which is just not true. It's absolutely the case that someone who has bought a +20 competency item and acquired an Item Familiar has a larger bonus than another character who has not done those things. But their bonus is always larger than that other character's, there's nothing conditional about it.

animorte
2023-02-04, 12:18 AM
There are totally arguments you can make here. I think "skill checks vary enormously because 3e contains a lot of options and which ones you choose dramatically changes your outcomes" is a valid critique. But that's a different critique from "there are a lot of conditional bonuses", which is just not true.

I request that you to take a good look at the Skill Synergies (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/SRD:Table_of_Skill_Synergies) table (found on page 66 of 3.5e PHB), count how many times you see the word "involving" and tell me none of that is conditional, not to mention all the other conditions that don't include that specific word.

Notice that bluff applies to 4 different conditions. Handle animal, tumble, and use rope each show two different conditions.


In some cases, this bonus applies only to specific uses of the skill in question, and not all checks. Some skills provide benefits on other checks made by a character, such as those checks required to use certain class features.
I honestly don't understand how the variance could be any more clear than that.

Kane0
2023-02-04, 01:16 AM
Seriously, how is "bless gives you a d4 bonus die" possibly any less complicated than "bless gives you a +1 bonus". It is the same effect applying at the same times, it's just that now it's variable. That's more complexity, not less.


Because you can have the 1d4 physically sitting next to your d20 to remind you, and that 1d4 does not interact with other bonuses/penalties that you might get. If you are recieving bless that caster is not also providing guidance or bane or shield of faith or enlarge/reduce or magic weapon or haste. All of which do add their own die or +1 or +2 mind you, but its usually only ever one at a time, and you tend to pay attention because of concentration.

It sounds like you're taking our examples in isolation, when the common contention is that the compounding of all these functions creates the difficulty. Difficulty as in 'this busywork is not adding to my enjoyment of the game', not 'im finding this challenging to calculate'

Satinavian
2023-02-04, 02:24 AM
Err, I've been climbing trees since I was like 7, and I guarantee you that 7 year old me was no Athletics Expert, I was a pretty normal kid. Like, unless we're talking about the legendary Greasebark Trees of the Fang jungle, wreathed in the deadly but beautiful Bloodsipper vines, climbing a climbable tree isn't that hard.

Ok, that whole thing sounded a bit strange, so i looked it up and well :

Climbing can be used untrained.

There are competence levels in the example difficulty table but that is not "you need to have this to be allowed to roll".
A failed climbing roll only means you don't advance and need to try again, only a fumble means you fall.

And yes, while that means that someone completely untrained without good attributes can climb an average tree, it will will likely take long and there is a risk to fall. If it is an easy to climb tree, that becomes an automatic success without a chance to fall, but will still take longer than for a trained climber.



Pathfinder 2 has enough problems without inventing new ones.

Ignimortis
2023-02-04, 03:40 AM
The longer I type up my response, the less I agree with this in general. Not only do I think it's possible to do all of the above in a single skill system, but I also think you're missing the space in-between where neither die rolls nor skill investment fully eclipse the other.

My personal preferences for a skill system (all of these things make intuitive sense to me as modeling the fiction, and work fine from a gameplay perspective as well):
1. Random chance or circumstantial bonuses should be the deciding factor in peer vs. peer contests, or when someone is pushing the edge of their ability (regardless of how skilled they are).
2. Specialists should have a distinct, genuine advantage over generalists, who should have a distinct, genuine advantage over someone with no investment whatsoever, regardless of level.
3. Specialists should almost always succeed at things that are only moderately difficult or easier.
4. Generalists should basically always have a chance in things they've invested in, unless they're trying something unreasonably hard.
5. There should be things that are too hard for an untrained character to even attempt.

There's a skill system that I quite like that accomplishes all of those things (I'm sure there are more than one). It's 3.5's (and to a large extent, PF1's). We don't have to choose between "everyone scales up everything as they level", "the dice decide everything", and "the dice are useless".

3.5's system only functions along those lines either before modifiers become too high to offset with dice (i.e. +25 is easy at level 10, and +40 is quite doable at level 15, so someone who hasn't invested into a skill has a, say, 3-22 roll range, and someone who has has a 41-60 roll range. What is impossible to one is trivial to another (DC30). A generalist with +20 to the same roll (still takes quite some investment, usually, it's not "yeah I can spare one skill point for this every four levels") can attempt a DC30 check, but will only succeed 50% of the time.

Which means that a challenge you can pose to such a group will either exclude everyone but the specialist, or have the specialist solve it automatically without needing to give other people a try.

Even now, at level 6, a survivalist Rogue in my PF1 game has +21 to Survival. If something calls for a Survival roll, there is no reason to hand it to anyone but the Rogue, because she can get a better result on a 1 than other party members get on an 11. The gap will only increase as they level, and by level 12 the Rogue will roll around +31 or +36 (+6 or so WIS, +15 class ranks, +10 or +15 magic item). There won't be anyone in the party who can reliably outroll a guaranteed 32/37 (or a talent-ed "automatically take 10" 41/46). A generalist would have to invest into magic items of their own to even come close. Say, +5 WIS, +8 class ranks instead of maxed +15, and a +10 magic item - that's a +23. No magic items for that particular skill? You're barely going to get their nat1 result even on a nat20.

You would have to completely exclude +skill magic items from the game, as well as improving the amount of skill points every class gets AND how they get to invest them. For instance, maybe the skill cap is actually "your HD x2" and you get commensurately more skill points so that you can spread them narrowly (most if not all trained skills at HDx2) or widely (most trained skills at HDx1 to HDx1.5). But the default 3.5 system very quickly reaches values where you either have to be a specialist to attempt stuff or you don't need to, as the specialist automatically wins.

I am not a fan of 5e's approach, but they too have identified this problem and decided to solve it in their own way. However, this leads to 5e's absurd "a level 1 untrained (+0) character beats a level 20 trained (proficient, stat +5) character in a skill contest around 20% of the time, and can even win circa 5% of contests with focused specialists (expertise, stat +5)".

Kurald Galain
2023-02-04, 04:15 AM
Pathfinder made its decision. You need to be this high to ride on skills. You don't have to like it, but at least there is an official rule on the matter, and Pathfinder is not stingy on the number of skills players may have.
Assuming from context that you're talking about PF2 here, yes it is very stingy on the number of skills players may have. That is, outside of rogues, at most levels you can have exactly two skills at a relevant level. And that is because you get only one skill increase per two levels (again, except rogues).


Climbing can be used untrained.

There are competence levels in the example difficulty table but that is not "you need to have this to be allowed to roll".
True enough, but there are also traps/hazards/obstacles that do require "Mastery in this skill to be allowed to roll". I can't off-hand think of any traps that require climbing, but quite a lot of traps work that way with e.g. thievery or arcana skills (to the point where the game basically requires that someone in the party maxxess out these skills).

Satinavian
2023-02-04, 04:54 AM
Assuming from context that you're talking about PF2 here, yes it is very stingy on the number of skills players may have. That is, outside of rogues, at most levels you can have exactly two skills at a relevant level. And that is because you get only one skill increase per two levels (again, except rogues).Oh, yes. PF2 is way too stingy here. It is as if someone thought "We can reach niche protection by making overlapping skills prohibitively expensive." It is honestly quite stupid. rogue/investigator skill increases should be the bare minimum to stay in the fiction of halfway competent adventurers.

True enough, but there are also traps/hazards/obstacles that do require "Mastery in this skill to be allowed to roll". I can't off-hand think of any traps that require climbing, but quite a lot of traps work that way with e.g. thievery or arcana skills (to the point where the game basically requires that someone in the party maxxess out these skills).But this is ok, i feel. Never liked the habit of "Oh, we have no clue what we are doing, but let's try anyway, maybe we get a high roll" relying on the fickleness of the D20 overshadowing the actual character abilities.

However it does become a problem if regular level appropriate tasks require maxing out skills. But that goes back to the seemingly rather intentional habit of PF2 to force everyone to make one-trick-ponies.

Ignimortis
2023-02-04, 06:45 AM
Oh, yes. PF2 is way too stingy here. It is as if someone thought "We can reach niche protection by making overlapping skills prohibitively expensive." It is honestly quite stupid. rogue/investigator skill increases should be the bare minimum to stay in the fiction of halfway competent adventurers.

I think it's a part of their design philosophy, which can be inferred to be "everyone only gets the bare minimum of abilities they need to form a feature-complete party of four". If you take four PCs, one of which is a Rogue/Investigator, you can cover all skills in the game...barely. With the exception of Crafting and Lore, which are somewhat specific and have few general uses, there are 15 skills...which is exactly how many skills 3 x non-skill (3 skills each) and 1 x skill (6 skills) characters would get.