Question: Ease of Play in PF2

[DataLoreRPG]

I stepped away from PF2 after running a couple groups through parts of the playtest. I liked alot of what I saw but I had significant misgivings about ease of play.

The leveled, nested conditions were the biggest offenders.Then the sheer number of conditions. Then the multiple AC types, the stacking rules and other overly fiddly bits.

Have folks who have followed Oblivion Oath or interviews noticed what, if anything, has been done reign this in? I like the 3 action economy, the multiclassing, the items, the gated feats and alot more. But the fiddly stuff (the nested, leveled conditions especially) kill me. Theres no way I can handle that at midnight after 4 beers, you know?

[FowlJ]

Touch attacks are gone, for one thing - characters just have one type of AC now.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm not sure what you mean by "nested, leveled conditions" like how instead of shaken, frightened, panicked in PF1 we just have one "frightened" condition with a number attached to indicate severity?

[DataLoreRPG]

My original points are outlined here:

Link

[DataLoreRPG]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean by "nested, leveled conditions" like how instead of shaken, frightened, panicked in PF1 we just have one "frightened" condition with a number attached to indicate severity?

Nested Conditions (examples)

Entangled: A snare or another entrapping effect holds you back. You’re hampered 10 (see the condition). If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while entangled, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied.

Grabbed: You’re held in place by another creature, making you immobile and flat-footed. If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while grabbed, you must succeed at a DC 5 flat check or it is lost; attempt the check after using it but before any effects are applied.

Thats just the basic ones and are, admittedly, not that bad. It gets way, way worse when you look at the poisons and crap that npcs can confer. Those are leveled and have nested conditions which vary by stage. Lets look at the very first one in Doomsday Dawn.

Centipede Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 13; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison and flat-footed (1 round); Stage 2 1d6 poison, flat-footed, and sluggish 2 (1 round)

Man, imagine, different pcs and npcs at different stages of effects having different levels of different conditions. That just sounds incredibly unfun to me. Then add in how some conditions count down (like frightened) and factor in the funky stacking rules. Ugh...

[HidaOWin]

Once we see the revised condition list for PF2, I'm sure we'll have a set of condition cards in no time which will summarise all that information for any player.

[Malk_Content]

I'm not sure how we can have interesting conditions that do multiple things without "nesting." The only way to avoid that would be to write out the "nested" conditions each time. Which would make that Centipede Venom way harder to read.

Centipede Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 13; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison and a –2 circumstance penalty to AC. (1 round); Stage 2 1d6 poison, –2 circumstance penalty to AC, and -2 conditional penalty to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based checks, and Reflex saves that is overrided by other circumstance penalties to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity based checks and Reflex saves if it has a higher negative. (1 round)

[PossibleCabbage]

I think one of the big problems in the playtest was that the conditions section was both commonly referenced and also hard to find in the book. If you put a copy of it in the back with the glossary it would be a lot better.

Like you couldn't even find a "conditions" bookmark in the second layer of the pdf index (underneath chapter titles.)

[3Doubloons]

Malk_Content wrote:

I'm not sure how we can have interesting conditions that do multiple things without "nesting." The only way to avoid that would be to write out the "nested" conditions each time. Which would make that Centipede Venom way harder to read.

Centipede Venom (poison) Saving Throw Fortitude DC 13; Maximum Duration 6 rounds; Stage 1 1d6 poison and a –2 circumstance penalty to AC. (1 round); Stage 2 1d6 poison, –2 circumstance penalty to AC, and -2 conditional penalty to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity-based checks, and Reflex saves that is overrided by other circumstance penalties to AC, attack rolls, Dexterity based checks and Reflex saves if it has a higher negative. (1 round)

You forgot to list all those Rogue features that Centipede Venom enables in there (like Sneak Attack, Debilitating Strike, Master Strike, etc.) and also all future abilities that combo off flat-footed that haven't yet been designed

[tqomins]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

I think one of the big problems in the playtest was that the conditions section was both commonly referenced and also hard to find in the book. If you put a copy of it in the back with the glossary it would be a lot better.

Conditions have been moved to an appendix and at least some effort was made to clean them up & make them easier to play. This per Jason's late-December Twitch chat, I believe.

[Pumpkinhead11]

It seems like it will have a bit of a learning curve, but for the most common conditions it’ll be easy to remember and implement. Flat-Foot is a straight -2 AC. Accelerated it +X Move Speed, Slowed is -X Actions. Poison is definitely a more complex system, but hopefully ends up being more rewarding for it. Nestling conditions into another condition such as Prone having Flat-Footed in its description for example will hopefully be as complex as they get, and at least are an effort towards consolidating rulings.

[Brew Bird]

If you do end up having trouble with conditions, I'd highly recommend one of the official GM screens. The condition references have saved me a ton of time in PF1, and likely will continue to do so in second edition,

[Captain Morgan]

You know what would be cool? If character sheets had boxes for penalties next to bonuses, with some tiny script by each box saying which conditions affect this particular bonus. It would probably make the sheet too crowded but it would be cool if when I said sluggish players could tell what that means just by looking at their sheet.

[Pumpkinhead11]

Captain Morgan wrote:

You know what would be cool? If character sheets had boxes for penalties next to bonuses, with some tiny script by each box saying which conditions affect this particular bonus. It would probably make the sheet too crowded but it would be cool if when I said sluggish players could tell what that means just by looking at their sheet.

We could start with maybe a one page cheat sheet when the CRB is released for a short-hand version. From there it could be easier to make a custom Character Sheet.

[Quandary]

Just doing my part of critique, I can say this boilerplate feels like waste of space that will get old soon:

Quote:

If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while entangled

...

Why not just invoke a concept of (manipulate) action in broad sense, which can include normal actions, free actions, reactions?
If only 1 or 2 are intended then those can be specifically cited as appropriate, but umbrella term seems to useful to not have.

AFAIK (based on play test), manipulate activities don't exist as such, there are just activities comprising (a) manipulate action(s).
Which really makes "activity" the least necessary or justified part that boilerplate which reduces legiibility,
not just in terms of length of un-necessary info, but it involves conceptual parsing that normal/free/reactions don't.

So even without change re: structural presentation of actions/free actions/reactions, I don't see why that boilerplate can't be changed in future for future content and Errata. Which goes along with my experience of 1E Errata, in that shorter is often better. Shortening Errata at most requires adding blank line between sections, but that extra space can be very useful when other Errata might need additional space. Which is why I think an Errata policy that embraces potential shortenings which are more accurate than original is "strategically" good Errata policy, because it reduces potential problems for other Errata needs.

[Ramanujan]

There is a reason condition cards were one of the few products announced as being available day one. They were really popular in PF1.

I suspect the reason they were really popular will carry over to PF2; that they make handling conditions so much easier. I can just hand the condition cards to the player, and it tells them exactly how it has effected them.

On another note, one good change to conditions - relative to PF1 - is that there are no longer any conditions that require recalculating your player sheet. I.e. nothing reduces stats that cause other things to need to be recalculated (such as reducing say your dexterity or your level).

[j b 200]

Ramanujan wrote:

On another note, one good change to conditions - relative to PF1 - is that there are no longer any conditions that require recalculating your player sheet. I.e. nothing reduces stats that cause other things to need to be recalculated (such as reducing say your dexterity or your level).

THIS! This is a huge help in play, but a HUGE help for a GM that might be running 8 monsters simultaneously.

[Mathmuse]

Quandary wrote:

Just doing my part of critique, I can say this boilerplate feels like waste of space that will get old soon:

Quote:

If you attempt a manipulate action, activity, free action, or reaction while entangled

...

Why not just invoke a concept of (manipulate) action in broad sense, which can include normal actions, free actions, reactions?
If only 1 or 2 are intended then those can be specifically cited as appropriate, but umbrella term seems to useful to not have.
...

The general term that encompasses action, activity, free action, and reaction is "task." For example, page 8 of the Playtest Rulebook says, "Activities are special tasks that you complete by spending 1 or more actions." That same page says, "Rolling dice to determine a character’s success or failure at a given task is a core element of the game." Page 307 under Basic Actions says, "These basic functions of the game are available to all creatures, and are how the game represents common tasks like moving around, attacking, and helping others."

Task is also used for a job with the Practice a Trade and Stage a Performance activities. The word is used a lot in the Difficulty Class section on pages 336-338, where it appears to mean any endeavor that requires a skill check.

I have no idea why the boilerplate says, "action, activity, free action, or reaction," rather than "task." Maybe it was left unused because task has no definition nor index entry in the Playtest Rulebook.

[Doktor Weasel]

The conditions can be a bit much. But at the same time, having things like Frightened 2 and such is better than having to remember which one frightened, shaken, terrified, panicked etc were.

One thing that really helped me in the playtest was using Charon Onozuka's Google docs sheet This of course requires using a computer for your character sheet, but I've been doing that with PF1 already. PF1 is a bit complicated with just a paper sheet, the Playtest was less so, but going digital sure helps. Charon's sheet has check-boxes for the conditions that automatically apply their effects and has the description as a note. I can't speak for Charon Onozuka, but I suspect he'll do a version of something similar for PF2 (I sure hope so, his playtest sheet is awesome), and if not, someone else probably will.

If not going digital, then the advice of others about using the GM screen and/or condition cards would probably be helpful. The PF2 condition cards are available for preorder. And the GM screen is availbable in landscape and portrait styles. (Portrait is a Paizo.com exclusive.)

[DataLoreRPG]

Dunno, dont think an rpg should all but require cards to keep stuff straight. 5E did a great job with conditions. They are few, meaningful and easy to manage. Other medium crunch d20 games (Shadow of the Demon Lord, 13th Age, etc) also succeed here.

It may simply be that PF2 just isnt for me and thats ok. No game is for everyone. But, I really hope that the end product is less finnicky than the playtest since I like the rest of the system and think Paizo APs are top notch. By lessening the number of conditions and simplifying how to adjudicate them in play, more players like myself would buy in.

I just cant see myself playing a game with timers going on multiple pcs and npcs, where im busilly tracking what stage of what effect each combatant is in and how that confers what level of what condition at what point for how many rounds. Determining whether or not x effect stacks with y effect, etc. That just sounds like work to me and its not work I want to do.

[Malk_Content]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

.

I just cant see myself playing a game with timers going on multiple pcs and npcs, where im busilly tracking what stage of what effect each combatant is in and how that confers what level of what condition at what point for how many rounds. Determining whether or not x effect stacks with y effect, etc. That just sounds like work to me and its not work I want to do.

That sounds like you are making more work for yourself then there actually is in the game.

The what stage, level and how many rounds is all one step. Its all covered by one number. Its the advantage of having numbered conditions. The answer to "how severe is the penalty and how long will it last for Frightened 1?" is 1. For 2, its 2. etc

My personal recommendation would be to just have some small tokens that serve as a reminder to the players (you shouldn't have to track anything on the player side, and if you do you should be training them to do it on their own.)

[DataLoreRPG]

Thats OK for fear in the absense of other crap. But once players start getting abilities and start fearing this, hampering that, stupifying that, sluggishing that guy...its gonna be a real chore.

It was already terrible in Doomsday Dawn on the very first adventure when we had to track that Centipede Poison at level 1.

I cant imagive what it will be like with items, spells, feats and crit specialization effects at higher levels.

This baby is already made, so I am not trying to convince anyone. I am just hoping its not as bad as it was in the playtest. Literally the only way I would play something like the playtest again would be on Fantasy Grounds with high levels of automation. But my local group? Man, no way.

[Gorbacz]

Wait, are you seriously saying that PF1's damage to stats poisons (or other effects) that forced you to stop for half an hour to recalculate what effects on your character does having -2 to STR and -4 to DEX have were fine but PF2 conditions are bad?

[Malk_Content]

Gorbacz wrote:

Wait, are you seriously saying that PF1's damage to stats poisons (or other effects) that forced you to stop for half an hour to recalculate what effects on your character does having -2 to STR and -4 to DEX have were fine but PF2 conditions are bad?

No I don't think he is. Its compared to fifth eds system which is incredibly easy.

[Malk_Content]

This should be mostly the work of the player. If the player is causing a condition, he should know what it does. If my players don't know what their abilities do, they don't get to do them.

[DataLoreRPG]

Gorbacz wrote:

Wait, are you seriously saying that PF1's damage to stats poisons (or other effects) that forced you to stop for half an hour to recalculate what effects on your character does having -2 to STR and -4 to DEX have were fine but PF2 conditions are bad?

I frankly left all that behind when I stopped playing 3.5E (happily, I might add). I am a 5E player now (mostly). Most of my experience with Paizo comes from the APs Ive converted (or my play thru of Age of Worms and Savage Tide back in the day).

I am considering PF2. But, speaking only for myself, some of the fiddly bits of PF2 make me think twice. I left that stuff behind for a reason and am not happy with that kind of book keeping.

I hear what Malk is saying about the players tracking that stuff but I dont think its that simple in actual play. You have multiple pcs and npcs causing all these conditions on eachother either in one go or nested in these staged affluctions. Its just not tenable to have players track this when there are multiple actors in play.

Again, I am just looking for specifics as far as how many conditions do we have now, do they still have these staged afflictions? Have they worked to simplify them if they are still there? Have they done more to improve the headaches bonus stacking had during the playtest? Etc etc.

[HidaOWin]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Dunno, dont think an rpg should all but require cards to keep stuff straight. 5E did a great job with conditions. They are few, meaningful and easy to manage. Other medium crunch d20 games (Shadow of the Demon Lord, 13th Age, etc) also succeed here.

It may simply be that PF2 just isnt for me and thats ok. No game is for everyone. But, I really hope that the end product is less finnicky than the playtest since I like the rest of the system and think Paizo APs are top notch. By lessening the number of conditions and simplifying how to adjudicate them in play, more players like myself would buy in.

I just cant see myself playing a game with timers going on multiple pcs and npcs, where im busilly tracking what stage of what effect each combatant is in and how that confers what level of what condition at what point for how many rounds. Determining whether or not x effect stacks with y effect, etc. That just sounds like work to me and its not work I want to do.

I understand your point, but you could also argue “why should I need a character sheet to track all my characters stats, can’t it just be simple enough that I can remember everything, just 1 or 2 numbers?”

Similarly we could argue about the necessity of dice, maps or pencils to playing a game. Ultimately games should make use of the props that make the game work as well as possible and you should play the games that suit your preferences.

[Vidmaster7]

Just decide everything with the ol rock paper scissors... wait a minute...

[Davido1000]

Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.

[QuidEst]

They said they were revising conditions, so we’ll see what that looks like. I’d still start off with a reference sheet, and if you begin play at first level, just ask your players to explain new conditions as they get the ability to inflict them. That will help remind you and your players.

Be up front with your players about what you’re willing to do on stacked conditions. If they know not to go in with a poisoner rogue, debuff necromancer, and status effect bomber all at once, then you won’t be dealing with silly amounts of timed conditions.

[Malk_Content]

So it probably won't help your concerns but I thought I'd put it here for now. When the game drops I'm going to make colour coded condition cards and matching tokens. That way you can just give out the tokens, and if the player already has a token of the same colour they know those don't stack.

[DataLoreRPG]

Davido1000 wrote:

Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.

Two things:

1. I think you can have PF2's character development, 3 Action Economy, and so on without necessitating color coded condition cards. I have played plenty of games that were crunchier than 5E that did not require nearly as much book keeping as the PF2 Playtest.

2. I did not post this to convince you or anyone else of anything. The game is in the can. Its been done. I came here to ask for information.

[QuidEst]

The information we have is that conditions were given another pass with at least some simplification. It was on their top five changes list.

[Davido1000]

DataLoreRPG wrote:

Davido1000 wrote:

Well it comes down to do you want a more indepth but complicated combat system that is pf2e or do you want to stick with the simple but easy combat of 5E. i personally find 5Es combat too simple and the conditions are all basically slap disadvantage or advantage on yourself.

Two things:

1. I think you can have PF2's character development, 3 Action Economy, and so on without necessitating color coded condition cards. I have played plenty of games that were crunchier than 5E that did not require nearly as much book keeping as the PF2 Playtest.

2. I did not post this to convince you or anyone else of anything. The game is in the can. Its been done. I came here to ask for information.

1. It's hardly complicated enough to warrant the need for condition cards to play, a gm screen or printing out a conditions sheet would do the trick with maybe a little symbol next to the model or token.

2.You were the one bringing comparison of 5e into it, i was just refuting your claim of better conditions just because most of the conditions were basically the same. "slap advantage or disadvantage on it"

[Ediwir]

I ran the full playtest up to level 17, and at one point I think one critter had 6 or 7 conditions on it, with everyone having at least a couple.
It... didn’t feel like a chore. I just had a marker for each, to make sure I had reminders, and that was it.

I believe most of it just comes down to getting used to it. It’s not gonna be too wild at early levels, and apparently a few things are getting condensed together, but it’ll be a lot more manageable than pf1.

As for 5e, I love their fatigue mechanics. This here, with Pf2? It’s like expanding on that concept.

[Malk_Content]

Want to be clear I don't think condition cards will be necessary. In the same way I don't think Spell Cards (or macros when I'm roll20ing) are necessary, or Focus beads, or the common actions reference I make for my players. But the more I can do before the game to make it run smoothly the better.

[Alenvire]

I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2

[Pumpkinhead11]

Alenvire wrote:

I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2

If a Rogue stabs someone in the middle of the woods, and no one is around to see it; does he role for damage?

On a serious note, yes, the customization and nuance is one of the nice things about it. Some of the simplification will take a little getting used to, but that leaves the moving parts to be put in other places.

[Mewzard]

Alenvire wrote:

I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2

Simpler than Pathfinder 1E doesn't mean as simple/samey as D&D 4E.

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

Honestly, if it goes well with my group and it gets proper support from Paizo...who knows? Maybe we'll move from PF1E to 2E.

[Deadmanwalking]

Alenvire wrote:

I find it funny everyone is talking about how this game should be more simple and easier to play then pf1. Me, I am hoping its not too simple. When you have simple systems you end up with simple characters, simple games, and simple just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor. If a rogue stabs for 1d6 and a fighter stabs for 1d6 does the rogue and fighter really matter? That is a overly simple example that I really hope is not a problem in pf2

Almost all the simplification is to the base system (ie: how bonuses work, how basic things like Saves function, the math in general, etc.) Which is to say to things that really should be the same for all Classes because they're fundamental to the basic engine rather than things that are chosen.

The differences between that and simplifying character choices (which does not seem to be a thing that's happening), is pretty profound, actually.

[graystone]

Malk_Content wrote:

Want to be clear I don't think condition cards will be necessary.

While I don't think it'll be a universal need, I think some will require them for the game to run smoothly enough for them to have fun.

Davido1000 wrote:

2.You were the one bringing comparison of 5e into it, i was just refuting your claim of better conditions just because most of the conditions were basically the same. "slap advantage or disadvantage on it"

This is one thing I loathe about 5e: just about everything ties to advantage/disadvantage, they don't stack in any way and and a single one can negate any number of the other [1 disadvantage + 6 advantages = nothing]. I'm SO glad PF2 didn't borrow the mechanic for everything.

I think this might be what Alenvire was alluding to: If your abilities/spells/ect all boil down to damage/healing plus advantage/disadvantage it "just ends up being identical to other characters with just different flavor".

[Davido1000]

Mewzard wrote:

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

This is what im hoping for, as much as i love 1e it gets way too complicated than it needs to be at a certain point and i find 5e terribly boring to run, especially the monsters.

[WatersLethe]

As for me, I love 1e and I have lots of characters I still want to play in it, but being the GM for our group and having three less invested players I ended up managing their characters.

Do you know how much work it is to manage 3 PF1 PCs and prepare the game? Reminding each of them of all their mechanics every time? Showing them individually all of their options each level and helping them make decisions based on their character concepts? (Complex concepts that don't exist in 5e, btw, like shape shifting cow monks)

I'm hoping 2e will give me the freedom to let them manage their own characters without constantly worrying about their poor saves, or underspending on AC or attack bonus, or one character with a modicum of system mastery outstripping everyone in damage all day every day.

So far, what I'm seeing is great for our group.

[Ediwir]

Never forget the ghostly +1s that either get lost on their way or appear out of nowhere. “What is your bonus to this” is usually answered accurately within about 3 points.

I’m looking forward to play a game that’s deep without going crazy for it.

[kaisc006]

Mewzard wrote:

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

I highly doubt many people will jump from 5e to PF2. The math behind the systems, and it’s effects on the fantasy world, are way too different. If paizo wanted that market they would’ve kept bounded accuracy but added complexity to class choices and combat.

PF2 is designed to appeal to those still playing PF1 or 3.5. At the core it’s essentially the same math but with more bonuses baked into classes rather than items, an added Crit mechanic that keeps the math super tight, change in action economy, and a mixed bag of simplification / complication concerning conditions / poisons. So at its core it’s still the same game engine, unlike 5e which took core concepts of the math and radically changed them.

I also don’t think 5e players will be keen to paizo’s publishing strategy which will be sure to pump out splatbooks all the time. 5e on the other hand only publishes 2-4 books a year and mostly adventures / flavor very little splat.

So while I think there were many hoping for PF2 to fill the gap between PF1 and 5e, I think it’s disingenuous to suggest PF2 is the gap between the two. More PF2 is an “upgraded” version of PF1 with no similarity to 5e... and I think that’s exactly what paizo was going for.

[MaxAstro]

I think you are probably right about active 5e players, kaisc. However, people who tried 5e but found it too simplified - but also find PF1e's barrier to entry too high - are likely to be prime targets for 2e.

[rooneg]

kaisc006 wrote:

Mewzard wrote:

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

I highly doubt many people will jump from 5e to PF2. The math behind the systems, and it’s effects on the fantasy world, are way too different. If paizo wanted that market they would’ve kept bounded accuracy but added complexity to class choices and combat.

I'm literally a 5e player who's planning to play a lot of PF2, and I doubt I'm unique. There is a huge appeal to having something that is less complicated and weird than PF1 while allowing way more choice in character building than 5e does. PF2 seems likely to hit the sweet spot there.

[Justin Franklin]

I do think there is a subset of 5e players that will look at moving to PF2 for the increased options and character advancement with out the complexity that is PF1. Definitely not a mass exodus, but I expect there are a set of groups out there that might move.

[Captain Morgan]

kaisc006 wrote:

Mewzard wrote:

To me, from what I've seen, Pathfinder 2E's going to find a nice home as a healthy middle ground between Pathfinder 1E and D&D 5E. For Pathfinder 1E players who want something simpler without hitting 5E, and for 5E players who want something more complex, but not at Pathfinder 1E's level, this could be the perfect home to many players.

I highly doubt many people will jump from 5e to PF2. The math behind the systems, and it’s effects on the fantasy world, are way too different. If paizo wanted that market they would’ve kept bounded accuracy but added complexity to class choices and combat.

That seems to assume most 5e players care that much about the math itself. That may be true for a certain segment of the hardcore players, but the average casual has probably never heard the term "bounded accuracy" and I reckon only the GM cares that much about the math which impacts encounter design. Plenty of folks are down to do the higher math story telling but wouldn't want to touch PF1 for all its complexity.

5e has enough mainstream appeal to where there are lots of people who haven't played anything else. PF2 is something that will be recognizable to those players while offering a more exciting menu of options to build from. But even setting aside build choice, PF2 has stuff that 5e doesn't. I'm running some 5e players through a playtest Rise of the Runelords game, and they LOVE the 3 action economy and using skills/perception for initiative. One has said that if he ever does DM 5e again he's going to import some PF2 stuff.

Which isn't to say PF2 is going to displace 5e or anything, given brand recognition and such, but it certainly has the potential to attract a fraction of the 5e players. 5e

[DataLoreRPG]

I am all for deep character customization and meaningful tactical choices. I just am not crazy about staged afflictions, complicated stacking rules or having a litany of conditions. Its a mistake to assume, I think, that one could not be had without the other.

It may do folks well to divorce themselves of the notion that wanting ease of play is the same thing as wanting a simplistic game. Games can be deep and rewarding without be baroque and confusing.