Pathfinder Playtest is actually MORE complicated than PF1E


General Discussion

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>

Mats Öhrman wrote:
Have they included the updates yet? Last time I looked they were still on version 1.0.

Unfortunately no. They're still on 1.0 but I distributed the 1.3 update to all players so they can patch on the fly (even more cross referencing). It's also missing some content (I'm guessing material that was copyrighted).

Grand Lodge

4 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Rulebook Subscriber

I figure in a year of playing, I'll find it much less complicated. The biggest sin is the fact that the playtest isn't easy to reference, so looking up unfamiliar rules takes way longer than it should. I don't think it's more complicated than PF1. I just can't rely on my memory with all the changes.

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

16 people marked this as a favorite.

I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary).

The design goals include being easy to pick up for a new player and easy to teach. If the system requires months to a year of mastery to pick up, then it has failed in this design goal. That's an issue all the "you just need more time to learn it" arguments seem to be overlooking.

As I mentioned in a prior thread, the PF2 rules seem more clearly codified and consistent, but not actually simpler or streamlined. There's still buckets of terms and processes you have to learn, the terms are just more consistently named. Some of the system's balancing and codification has even made the game LESS simple--I can't just drink a potion anymore, I gotta check a point pool and all the nonsense that comes with that point pool system. That system may serve a purpose, but simplification and ease of use/teaching is not it.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary)...

You must UNLEARN what you have learned.

*Chews on stick and looks profoundly wise*


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Yoda Pugwampi wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary)...

You must UNLEARN what you have learned.

*Chews on stick and looks profoundly wise*

Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.

Unlearn it You Must!


Pathfinder Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Dire Ursus wrote:
Alchemaic wrote:
Except you could also do that in PF1e right off the bat by just taking X levels of Fighter and Y levels of Wizard. Which also didn't lock you into taking ONLY Wizard/Fighter bonus levels for a set period of time. And also actually gave you faster access to prestige classes, since at minimum an Eldritch Knight prestige class would come online at level 8, with the major abilities you'd actually want showing up at level 10 while in PF1e you could get in at level 7 if you really gunned for it, or whenever you want if you decided to take more Fighter levels for one reason or another.
Except that's a ridiculously weak trap build in PF1. You'll end up with a crappy fighter who can use crappy spells.

Or you'd wind up with an Eldritch Knight. Or you'd wind up with a Fighter who's basically a Fighter, except that he has utility abilities or the ever handy True Strike spell. Or you'd wind up with a Wizard who qualifies for Eldritch Knight but hasn't taken the prestige class for some reason since that one Fighter level isn't doing too much for him. That one's kind of a trap option I'll admit.


12 people marked this as a favorite.

I don't necessarily think it's system mastery at work as I play plenty of other systems and don't usually have these kinds of problems except for stuff life Exalted or D&D 4e where there are lots of ways to do pretty much the same thing, but in mechanically different ways.

Basically, PF2s engine is lacking internal consistency which makes it harder to learn since you can't just extrapolate from similar rules elsewhere in the system. It also has a lot of moving parts that require more extensive bookkeeping than we enjoy.

Certainly familiarity with a system can speed things up, but if you can't understand how something's supposed to work at all (shields, steath, etc) how do you gain experience with those rules?


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:

I don't necessarily think it's system mastery at work as I play plenty of other systems and don't usually have these kinds of problems except for stuff life Exalted or D&D 4e where there are lots of ways to do pretty much the same thing, but in mechanically different ways.

Basically, PF2s engine is lacking internal consistency which makes it harder to learn since you can't just extrapolate from similar rules elsewhere in the system. It also has a lot of moving parts that require more extensive bookkeeping than we enjoy.

Certainly familiarity with a system can speed things up, but if you can't understand how something's supposed to work at all (shields, steath, etc) how do you gain experience with those rules?

I'm pretty much on the same page, I think Playtest is the most complicated iteration, yet, I would choose any other edition to introduce new players. It's rather impenetrable, and fiddly, lot's of micro-action. I am hoping they dial back the byzantine aspects upon release.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
Crayon wrote:


Certainly familiarity with a system can speed things up, but if you can't understand how something's supposed to work at all (shields, steath, etc) how do you gain experience with those rules?

To be fair, this is the sort of thing a playtest is supposed to identify so it can be fixed for the proper release.

Sadly, it seems a playtest won't help remove the basic system is one I can't stand, nor the nerfs to magic.


6 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
tivadar27 wrote:
Yoda Pugwampi wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary)...

You must UNLEARN what you have learned.

*Chews on stick and looks profoundly wise*

Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.

Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"


12 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:
Yoda Pugwampi wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
I've learned a few brand new game systems these last few years. PF2 is the only one I have struggled to try to keep everything straight. I think there IS a challenge in trying to unlearn/forget PF1 rules in PF2 context, not assume something is the same. But even so, I have found PF2 unintuitive and hard to learn or teach to other (experienced in many systems) gamers in a way that lack of backwards compatibility can't account for (nor do I think backwards compatibility is necessary)...

You must UNLEARN what you have learned.

*Chews on stick and looks profoundly wise*

Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.

Unlearn it You Must!
Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Page 110 - heading: learning the rules:"Already a master of PF1E (see page 312)."

Page 312: "you are and all of its powers (see page 234) you have."

Page 234: "Why a new system you master do want? (see page 110)."

Fixed that for you.... Now it looks like the rules.


18 people marked this as a favorite.
DeathQuaker wrote:
Some of the system's balancing and codification has even made the game LESS simple--I can't just drink a potion anymore, I gotta check a point pool and all the nonsense that comes with that point pool system. That system may serve a purpose, but simplification and ease of use/teaching is not it.

This needs all the favorites. And to be on a big neon sign. This is exactly why it hasn't succeeded at simplification. Point pools and limited day things are not simpler than "I have a potion, I drink it." Drinking a potion and having it do something is inherently intuitive, even newbies understand is happening and won't need rules explained to them except to look up the exact potion effect if it's not on their sheet already.

As soon as you add in "check if you have enough resonance to see if the potion actually works or if you have to do a check against some flat DC, then cross a point of that off and also remove the potion"... that is not simple. A newbie can't intuitively understand that. I don't even know what the DC is without the rulebook in my hand if you try to go over your resonance limit. So we have to look that up. Then we have to look up what a "flat" check is, because it works differently than the other checks we're used to doing.

(One of the things I don't like about resonance is that it takes something simple and makes it more complicated, which is against what I thought was a design goal of the new system.)

It's not the only example. The +/- 10 crit system has removed a shortcut we used to take: if I rolled a 17 and hit, I wouldn't bother to even do precise math if the next attack was obviously > 17. Everyone in my group does this, we'll just say "20 something" at a glance and move on unless the DM stops us by saying he needs a precise number (which very rarely happens).

In 2e, you always need a precise number. It's admittedly a small thing, but I need to keep more things in my head to know what happens on a given roll than I used to, and need to always be precise in adding up results.


9 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.
Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Agreed, I'm not all that interested in learning a new RPG system, particularly when I'm quite happy with the system, PF1e, that I'm currently playing.

To my mind, this is just another strike against PF2e. I don't especially want to spend time learning a system that I don't really like and didn't ask for.


8 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Rulebook, Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
pjrogers wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.
Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Agreed, I'm not all that interested in learning a new RPG system, particularly when I'm quite happy with the system, PF1e, that I'm currently playing.

To my mind, this is just another strike against PF2e. I don't especially want to spend time learning a system that I don't really like and didn't ask for.

It's a definite question to which the developers so far have not delivered a convincing answer. At least to me.


7 people marked this as a favorite.
magnuskn wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.
Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Agreed, I'm not all that interested in learning a new RPG system, particularly when I'm quite happy with the system, PF1e, that I'm currently playing.

To my mind, this is just another strike against PF2e. I don't especially want to spend time learning a system that I don't really like and didn't ask for.

It's a definite question to which the developers so far have not delivered a convincing answer. At least to me.

Considering that the original sales pitch for 1e was literally "you don't have to change systems from d20!", I don't envy Paizo's job in now trying to sell that market on a dramatic system change.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
pjrogers wrote:
magnuskn wrote:
tivadar27 wrote:


Played Pathfinder First Edition You Did.
Unlearn it You Must!

Or better yet: "Already a master of PF1E you are and all of its powers you have. Why a new system you master do want?"

Agreed, I'm not all that interested in learning a new RPG system, particularly when I'm quite happy with the system, PF1e, that I'm currently playing.

To my mind, this is just another strike against PF2e. I don't especially want to spend time learning a system that I don't really like and didn't ask for.

It's a definite question to which the developers so far have not delivered a convincing answer. At least to me.
Considering that the original sales pitch for 1e was literally "you don't have to change systems from d20!", I don't envy Paizo's job in now trying to sell that market on a dramatic system change.

Yeah, sort of stuck between a PF and a 5th Ed place. The PF and 5th Ed crowds are well established, to pull from both, while attracting brand new to the hobby players, is a tall order.


Pathfinder Maps Subscriber; Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber

Hey, if you wanted an easy RPG system, you chose poorly! We're Pathfinders! We choose to look Farabellus in his laughing face and say "Okay. We'll take on that obvious suicide mission!"

RPG Superstar 2015 Top 8

11 people marked this as a favorite.
Tridus wrote:
DeathQuaker wrote:
Some of the system's balancing and codification has even made the game LESS simple--I can't just drink a potion anymore, I gotta check a point pool and all the nonsense that comes with that point pool system. That system may serve a purpose, but simplification and ease of use/teaching is not it.

This needs all the favorites. And to be on a big neon sign. This is exactly why it hasn't succeeded at simplification. Point pools and limited day things are not simpler than "I have a potion, I drink it." Drinking a potion and having it do something is inherently intuitive, even newbies understand is happening and won't need rules explained to them except to look up the exact potion effect if it's not on their sheet already.

As soon as you add in "check if you have enough resonance to see if the potion actually works or if you have to do a check against some flat DC, then cross a point of that off and also remove the potion"... that is not simple. A newbie can't intuitively understand that. I don't even know what the DC is without the rulebook in my hand if you try to go over your resonance limit. So we have to look that up. Then we have to look up what a "flat" check is, because it works differently than the other checks we're used to doing.

(One of the things I don't like about resonance is that it takes something simple and makes it more complicated, which is against what I thought was a design goal of the new system.)

It's not the only example. The +/- 10 crit system has removed a shortcut we used to take: if I rolled a 17 and hit, I wouldn't bother to even do precise math if the next attack was obviously > 17. Everyone in my group does this, we'll just say "20 something" at a glance and move on unless the DM stops us by saying he needs a precise number (which very rarely happens).

In 2e, you always need a precise number. It's admittedly a small thing, but I need to keep more things in my head to know what happens on a given roll than I used to, and need to always be...

Reading your post, it dawns on me that the game feels like a pile of different subsystems rather than a single unified system. In addition to the fact that you have to learn them all at once.

I realize PF1 and its predecessor d20 systems could feel that way too, but I remember learning 3.0 back in 2000 and just being so glad about its streamlining compared to AD&D 2nd ed, when I always had trouble calculating to-hit, got confused about when to roll high (attacks) and when to roll low (ability checks), and so on (NOTE: this is NOT an invitation to debate the merits of 2nd vs 3rd eds--I am talking from a personal perspectives about the learning curves I personally encountered trying to learn those games; if your learning experience was different, that's fine and is not the point--I'm trying to illustrate why I felt good switching from an older, longstanding, beloved edition to a newer one, for what I hope are obvious reasons)--now it was universally roll high and add easy to calculate modifier! 3.0 had complex subsystems and massive inconsistencies to be sure but building and playing 1st level character felt reasonably easy, like I could master the one main mechanic and a few key class abilities, and then get on with it--and by the time I needed to know the more complicated stuff, I had mastered the basics.

PF1 had it easy because it was mainly people, yes, who were 3.x converts---but also because PF1 was taking that system and initially streamlining it, such as through combining disparate special attacks through the combat maneuvers system. Several sub systems you had to learn became ONE SYSTEM. That is how to streamline. Pathfinder later added more complexity but a good deal of it was optional or again, something you could pick up later and it wasn't necessary to grasp just to play a quick 1st level adventure.

PF2 is simultaneously too similar to PF1 and nothing like it, skewing learning curves dramatically. I think it looks like the dev team identified key issues with PF1 balance and then tried to design systems to fix those issues--but designed several different systems to do so, making the player have to learn a whole bunch of new stuff, from scratch, that is crucial to know even at level 1.

If PF2 is to be successful, they need to scrap this piecemeal approach entirely and build up with coherent, united systems that feel intuitive---and preserve more complex concepts to grasp for higher level play.

Let me be clear, I want PF2 to be successful. PF1 I love but it is at the end of its design life. Even if I choose to play my massive backlog of PF1 adventures and not switch to PF2 personally, I still WANT PF2 to be successful, and I especially want it to be friendly to new players and new gamers. It is NOT. And that really concerns me.


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure, Adventure Path Subscriber

I have to agree that the new rules sometimes feel like a big pile of new subsystems. I cringed a little bit when the 1.4 update came out and it was announced that the problems with Ancestry would fixed by adding Heritage. Heritage addresses a concern that one of my players had expressed about the new system, so that's good. I just fear all the fixes adding more little subsystems on top of the other subsystems.

That said, I have become obsessed with the new game, and I want it to be a success. I have created more characters for this system than I have for any system since AD&D. Character creation is slow the first couple of times, but it gets much faster with practice.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I too like SO much about the new system - character creation, the 3 action economy, skill feats, etc. But I do feel it gets bogged down in an over-reliance on keywords, leading to an overwhelming number of cross-referenced conditions and traits. It just feels like in 1st edition I could merely walk across a room and open a door, but now I’m taking a Stride action, then taking an Interact action with the Manipulate Trait. And if there’s a trap on the door, it has its own litany of keywords and traits, and might leave me Stupified 3 or Hampered 5 or Lactose Intolerant 2 or some other condition that’s actually a combination of 2 other conditions. While I totally get the rationale behind this, I just feel it’s all gotten TOO codified and granular. In a playtest game I wanted to hold my breath & run through a swirling cloud of dust particles, something in 1st edition i simply would have announced doing - but since the act of holding my breath was now a specific Action with it’s own set of keywords and traits & I simply couldn’t find it in the book despite several minutes of frantic page-flipping, I eventually just dove thru the cloud to whatever consequence it held. It all sometimes feels less like interactive storytelling and more like reading alternating passages from an instruction manual with a group of friends, if that makes any sense.

101 to 120 of 120 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Archive / Pathfinder / Playtests & Prerelease Discussions / Pathfinder Playtest / Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion / Pathfinder Playtest is actually MORE complicated than PF1E All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.
Recent threads in Pathfinder Playtest General Discussion