Is character building faster, more convenient, in P2E?

[Uetur]

It is funny you posted this because I was thinking about this last night as I was going through character concepts. If I started a level 1 character made a choice that looked fun and had faith the game designers wouldn't make me regretting my choices this system works fabulously. I have been playing a lot of Starfinder recently and P2E is a much faster character build for me. In fact I think I can teach this system pretty quickly.

However when I personally build characters I want to know what are the general consequences down the road because I want to get an idea of how a class will perform. This is where I got bogged down. For instance I looked at an Alchemist focusing on Mutagens which caused me to flip to items to understand what could be a core feature of the class. I had to figure out how to differentiate between mutagens and elixirs. Then I had to go look at skills to understand how crafting worked and how the class improves or doesn't improve on that. Then I wondered why there were two attack styles (bite and claw) on the bestial mutagen and how that interacted with the goblin bite. Then knowing that longer term modifying those attacks would be important I had to figure out how that worked. This is where choice starts to bog me down because there are a lot of branching paths when you go through this process and I was comparing this to the other two alchemist sub-paths. Don't even get me started on archetypes lol.

None of this is bad as it vastly entertaining for me but it does take a long time. My only complain is I am not seeing any sort of level by level grid similar to Starfinder, DnD5e, etc. showing BABs, saving throw modifiers, etc.

[Shisumo]

Rysky wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So Paizo has collected data that shows people that are extremely used to PF1 have a harder time picking it up than those that are brand new to the hobby? When and how did they collect that data?

Playtest. Surveys.

They have made numerous references to focus group testing for this purpose as well.

[Joana]

Shisumo wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So Paizo has collected data that shows people that are extremely used to PF1 have a harder time picking it up than those that are brand new to the hobby? When and how did they collect that data?

Playtest. Surveys.

They have made numerous references to focus group testing for this purpose as well.

^This. I couldn't remember what they were called, but focus groups. I heard Jason (on a stream from PaizoCon, I believe) talking about how they got groups of people together who had never played an RPG before and had them create characters and play a short game using the final ruleset.

[Ravingdork]

Kurtz, Rysky, et al, can you please take your discussion elsewhere and allow the thread to get back on topic?

[Alyran]

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You: How did they collect the data?

Me: Through the surveys.

You: That doesn't make any sense.

???

Of course it doesn't make sense. How does data collected over a year ago during the playtest reflect how easy or hard it is to pick up PF2 compared to PF1?

Because the character creation process is almost exactly the same as it was during the playtest.

[Colonel Kurtz]

Squiggit wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Seems if you do not dig every aspect of PF2, the same half-dozen posters all come down on you (plus the cheerleading), been going on since the playtest started.

I know right? How dare people disagree with your assertions or question why you feel the way you do.

Totally, and why should we take people's assertions and anecdotes at face-value, especially as many seem fabricated.

[Staffan Johansson]

Mekkis wrote:

This is further exacerbated by having feat chains that are heavily siloed - so if you want to take a certain sixth-level feat at sixth-level, you'll need to take the prerequisites. So now you need to understand what the sixth-level feats do before you make your choice at first level.

I looked over a few classes, and the prerequisites tend to fall into a few categories:

1. Improvements on the previous feats. For example, the fighter's Furious Focus requires Power Attack, because it improves Power Attack.

2. Class paths. Some feats are siloed to different class paths. For example, the Champion chooses a Divine Ally at 3rd level: shield (defensive), blade (offensive), or steed (animal companion). Many defensive champion feats, particularly those that defend others, require a Shield divine ally. That's pretty logical.

3. "Free" prerequisites. Some feats have prerequisites that people of that class automatically get. This is, I think, mostly to keep them away from multi-classing and also future-proofing for when we get archetype dedications.

4. Skill prerequisites. These usually allow you to use the skill in question in new ways.

I don't see any of these prerequisites as particularly onerous. None of them is anywhere close to e.g. PF1's Whirlwind Attack, which required four prerequisite feats, none of which seemed particularly logical and only served to make the feat harder to get.

[jimthegray]

1) How long does it take for you to build a 1st-level character?
2) How long does it take for you to build a higher level character?
3) Do you use online apps or other aids to expedite the process? If so, which ones, and how do they help?
4) What other notable experiences have you had with character building in P2E?

1: 1st level? 5 , 10 minutes

2: a few minutes more per level, longer if im trying to figure out something odd and different

3: herolabs greatly speeds me up

4: im enjoying figureing things out

[Colonel Kurtz]

Alyran wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Rysky wrote:

You: How did they collect the data?

Me: Through the surveys.

You: That doesn't make any sense.

???

Of course it doesn't make sense. How does data collected over a year ago during the playtest reflect how easy or hard it is to pick up PF2 compared to PF1?

Because the character creation process is almost exactly the same as it was during the playtest.

What does that have to do with whether someone brand new to RPGs finds PF1 or 2 easier to learn?

[Deadmanwalking]

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

What does that have to do with whether someone brand new to RPGs finds PF1 or 2 easier to learn?

Fact #1: Per surveys, people who had never played RPGs before found the Pathfinder Playtest easy to create characters in.

Fact #2: The Pathfinder Playtest and PF2 use pretty much exactly the same structure for character creation.

Can you truly not see how these two facts together might be evidence that people who have never played RPGs before might find PF2 character creation easy?

[Gloom]

There were also Focus Groups that Paizo worked with to determine the overall improvements they made to character creation. People have also shared empirical evidence from their experiences.

The fact that these pieces of evidence are not sufficient for Kurtz and others in this thread lead me to believe that they're simply looking to convince people about their views and are not really looking to have their minds changed.

[Colonel Kurtz]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

What does that have to do with whether someone brand new to RPGs finds PF1 or 2 easier to learn?

Fact #1: Per surveys, people who had never played RPGs before found the Pathfinder Playtest easy to create characters in.?

So people that never played RPGs were filling out the playtest surveys and found it easier to learn than PF1?

[PossibleCabbage]

For me the three pressure points of creating a character that have the most cognitive overhead are:
1) Picking spells, if appropriate.
2) Allocating stats.
3) Picking a Background.

The first one is the same as it was in PF1, nothing new here except "the spells are different".

Stats are a tricky one since you can project them to level 20 right off the bat, and you likely want to hit certain thresholds at specific points (like if you want to multiclass at level 2).

For the backgrounds the hardest part for me is "do I want the skill feat this background grants" since no lore skill is a priori more useful than any other (I mean Baking Lore seems trivial until the campaign includes both a pie-making contest and a medical mystery where the answer is "ergotism"), but I just don't know what the skill feats do off the top of my head yet. In fact, I've found "picking my level 2 skill feat" takes me longer than creating a character.

[Deadmanwalking]

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So people that never played RPGs were filling out the playtest surveys and found it easier to learn than PF1?

People who had never played RPGs before the playtest, yes. The playtest had a really large number of people fill out surveys, I imagine only a fraction fell into this category, but I'm pretty sure that's still a hefty sample size.

[The Raven Black]

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is what is what I have found with teaching new players, and others I know, and contacts, groups, etc, finding.

So, I guess all we have to go on is everyone's assertions and anecdotes, until we see some hard evidence, one way or the other, as to whether PF1 or PF2 is easier to teach new players.

Okay, see, this is exactly what I was asking.

And sure, we only have anecdotes for the moment, but so far, yours is the only one I've heard where people who were new to RPGs (as opposed to people who'd previously done PF1) found PF2 harder.

Well, that's not entirely true is it?

It is, I mean, maybe ease to learn was a goal, but whether they have succeeded, remains to be seen. We do not have any hard evidence that PF2 is easier for new players to pick up than PF1.

What hard evidence do you have that it is not easier?

Which hard evidence would even be enough to satisfy you here?

Out of respect to RD, this will be my first and last post on this derail.

[PossibleCabbage]

At a guess, most of the data they have with "people with limited Pathfinder experience" was in demo games at events. Since it's comparatively easy to get people to give something a try at an event if they have some free time and your pitch is good.

I will say, based on my experiences, if I was introducing someone who is brand new to Tabletop RPGs to a d20 game, Pathfinder first edition would be very low on my list of things to try. I acknowedge that the PF1 beginner's box is a fine product, but the "Beginner's Box PF1" is as far from "how I conceive of Pathfinder 1st edition" as PF2 is, honestly. I mean, my current PF1 game has an Aquatic Elf Gunslinger, a Gillman Medium, and an Undine Shaman in it.

[WatersLethe]

PossibleCabbage wrote:

In fact, I've found "picking my level 2 skill feat" takes me longer than creating a character.

I noticed that skill feats are a pretty common sticking point. I think it can largely be attributed to 1. Picking from a big list and 2. Having to read each feat and related skill closely to understand the mechanics and value of each feat.

Once you get to higher levels, with skills increased to Expert and Master you start to have your list narrowed as you look at the higher level (and ostensibly more valuable) skill feats.

I almost want to recommend that new players just don't pick one until they've played a little bit.

[PossibleCabbage]

I'm hoping that once there are a whole lot of skill feats, the various online SRDs will offer the ability to sort them via "what skill they are". Like if I have decided "Intimidation is the most important thing to me" I can just look at those feats without having to read the whole list again.

[Colonel Kurtz]

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

So people that never played RPGs were filling out the playtest surveys and found it easier to learn than PF1?

People who had never played RPGs before the playtest, yes.

So how would they compare it to PF1 if they were new to RPGs?

[Colonel Kurtz]

The Raven Black wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Captain Morgan wrote:

Deadmanwalking wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

That is what is what I have found with teaching new players, and others I know, and contacts, groups, etc, finding.

So, I guess all we have to go on is everyone's assertions and anecdotes, until we see some hard evidence, one way or the other, as to whether PF1 or PF2 is easier to teach new players.

Okay, see, this is exactly what I was asking.

And sure, we only have anecdotes for the moment, but so far, yours is the only one I've heard where people who were new to RPGs (as opposed to people who'd previously done PF1) found PF2 harder.

Well, that's not entirely true is it?

It is, I mean, maybe ease to learn was a goal, but whether they have succeeded, remains to be seen. We do not have any hard evidence that PF2 is easier for new players to pick up than PF1.

1) What hard evidence do you have that it is not easier?

2) Which hard evidence would even be enough to satisfy you here?

1) I don't.

2) I guess getting groups of new to RPG people, half learning PF1, the other half learning PF2, and see which has the easier time of it.

[Malk_Content]

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Squiggit wrote:

Colonel Kurtz wrote:

Seems if you do not dig every aspect of PF2, the same half-dozen posters all come down on you (plus the cheerleading), been going on since the playtest started.

I know right? How dare people disagree with your assertions or question why you feel the way you do.

Totally, and why should we take people's assertions and anecdotes at face-value, especially as many seem fabricated.

I'm sorry Ravingdork but if someone heavily implies I'm a liar I'm going to defend myself.

Quite frankly col, how dare you. Someone having a different experience from you does not make them a liar. Once you said you have experienced difficulty teaching new people I took that at face value, despite it being different from my experience,and even offered to see if any of the tools I used to teach would be useful. You break all common courtesy by throwing that in my face and saying I'm a liar.

[Gloom]

I really don't think that Kurtz cares much about what other people have experienced.

My belief is that they found it more inconvenient and have thoughts on how it could be better, but rather than presenting it in that way they're approaching it in one of the most passive aggressive ways they could.

This thread is neither informative nor productive.

[Xenocrat]

Weird that someone named after the antagonist of Apocalypse Now wouldn't argue in good faith.

[Colonel Kurtz]

Gloom wrote:

I really don't think that Kurtz cares much about what other people have experienced.

That's fine and all, but people making blanket statements about which is easier based on their anecdotes is hard to swallow, and of course, with the internet you have the classic "You never see blue, 5-legged tigers", instantly you will get "I see blue, 5-legged tigers all the time, and so does my wife.".

[PossibleCabbage]

How about we restrict our commentary to:
1) Personal experiences.
2) Suppositions which are clearly presented as such.

[WormysQueue]

So far, I find the process of building a level 1 character much more intuitive than with PF 1. I also expect it to be much faster as soon as I have stopped tripping over my own expectations based on playing 3.X/PF for nearly 20 years.

We'll see what happens over time, when more and more options get added to the mix, but I mostly agree with what Morrus had to say over at EnWorld. To me, it seems like PF 2 has succeeded in being less complex than PF 1, but still having a tremendous amount of depth to it. So I expect in the future to waste less time on thinking about if my idea for a character can even work in actual gameplay, but rather spend it on the many different options the rules present to me.

[Malk_Content]

So back on topic, I will note that making higher level characters does increase the time factor somewhat. The amount of options you have for each silo increases, especially if you've taken a dedication. The magic items chapter is a bit unwieldy and is where I've had the most slow down theory crafting (my experience making high level characters with other players is limited to the playtest.) And the increased popularity means you have to make at least one semi big choice each level.

I still find it easier than making high level pf1 characters, but not necessarily faster.

[Unicore]

Yeah, I don't recommend having new players make high level casters to start out with. PF2 spells generally do a good job of saying what they do, but it takes a long time to read through them and make sure that you understand all of the traits and specific terminology. But that was true in PF1 as well.

One issue brought up that I think is interesting is whether or not it is easy to trap yourself in a build that has no where to go as you level up in play. I think the theory crafter answer is absolutely, but I am wondering, if in play, it will become apparent enough when you reach those very dead levels for certain feats, or that your proficiency is falling so far behind that you are starting to get frustrated, that you will be able to train out of it organically enough to feel satisfied. That will largely depend upon GMs and will probably take months before actually new players reach those points, but they are things I would love for GMs and board followers to pay attention to and report back on.

[Ravingdork]

Malk_Content wrote:

I'm sorry Ravingdork but if someone heavily implies I'm a liar I'm going to defend myself.

This here is MY club, where civilized gents and dames like to have a good time. See?

*Makes a sweeping gesture at the other patrons.*

Now, take your problems outside unless you want a new pair of cement galoshes! Capiche?

(That's what private messaging is for. If someone attacks you personally, just flag it and move on. Don't air out your dirty laundry where others have to deal with it.)

[Captain Morgan]

Ravingdork wrote:

Malk_Content wrote:

I'm sorry Ravingdork but if someone heavily implies I'm a liar I'm going to defend myself.

This here is MY club, where civilized gents and dames like to have a good time. See?

*Makes a sweeping gesture at the other patrons.*

Now, take your problems outside unless you want a new pair of cement galoshes! Capiche?

(That's what private messaging is for. If someone attacks you personally, just flag it and move on. Don't air out your dirty laundry where others have to deal with it.)

I'm actually pretty sympathetic to this point of view. I think these forums have a real problem understanding what spaces to talk about particular things. This includes respecting a thread creator's area they'd actually like to discuss as well as overusing the general discussion forums for things covered in other areas.

In this particular case it got muddled because folks were discussing your actual topic except when one was Schrabbing while doing so. It takes longer for people to realize they are being trolled rather than just talking to someone very dense. And folks are worked up because they spent all that time trying to rationally argue in good faith with someone who wasn't.

Back on topic: I've generally found character creation much quicker and don't strictly need an app to do it, though doing it with the slightly buggy Pathbuilder app is very fast indeed.

[Chance Wyvernspur]

Chance Wyvernspur wrote:

1) It depends on my character conception. If its close to something the Devs envisioned, then it takes me about an hour...

Amending what I said prior...

My friend asked me to whip up a Healbot NPC today. Just picking from what was presented to me as options, with the general goal of being a strong healer, it took me around 15 minutes to have a mostly complete frame, around 10 minutes of what-if'ing and looking things up (mostly feat and skill descriptions), and 5 minutes to put the finishing touches on things like equipment.

... so if I start with little to no character conception, it goes pretty fast.

[Bandw2]

huh, when you come back and there's like 100 or so more posts on "some topic like this", you just know something derailed the thread.

[SunKing]

I find the conversation here interesting, because it mostly presupposes that ‘simpler, faster’ must be better, when so many of us spoke about our great fear that character generation would lack the full and and rich character generation from PF1. Any ‘full and rich character generation’ must be by definition ‘slow and complex.’ The process can of course be aided by clearer rules and clearer definition of those rules...

I will say, as a guy who is staying with PF1 but bought the PF2 CRB, I think the latter is clearer, easier to understand, and easier to logically follow.

[Squiggit]

SunKing wrote:

Any ‘full and rich character generation’ must be by definition ‘slow and complex.’

Not necessarily. Something can be convoluted but still ultimately shallow or intuitive but still rich and fulfilling.

[Kimera757]

Character building takes me a long time in PF1e, but that's mainly because the rules had gotten so bloated.

I suspect PF2e characters can be built more quickly, but eventually the system will inflate and character building will take longer.

[Bandw2]

SunKing wrote:

I find the conversation here interesting, because it mostly presupposes that ‘simpler, faster’ must be better, when so many of us spoke about our great fear that character generation would lack the full and and rich character generation from PF1. Any ‘full and rich character generation’ must be by definition ‘slow and complex.’ The process can of course be aided by clearer rules and clearer definition of those rules...

I will say, as a guy who is staying with PF1 but bought the PF2 CRB, I think the latter is clearer, easier to understand, and easier to logically follow.

I'm not sure i agree, if you spread creating your character more evenly over levels and have less requirements, you'll be dealing more with what you can add and not what you can make room for(because of feat taxes etc), it actually gets more intense at higher levels as feats starts clamouring for those last few feat slots.

[Temperans]

Sound like a shallow system can be made using any complexity (even none); but a full/rich system needs to have some complexity.

Fast and slow have more to do with how it's written.

For example: Using college lv word problems to teach elementary students is going to be stupid slow no matter how much you explain it.
On the other hand, you can take an elementary school problem and write it using college lv word problems and make it either really fast, or just a mess.

[SunKing]

Perhaps the word we’re all looking for here is that rare but highly-sought after quality: ‘elegance,’ where we get a game (and chargen) of great variety and our choices matter in sophisticated ways, but achieved at a minimum of complexity and hassle....

I’m just saying that SOMETIMES, we don’t get both, and that a complex process used to be (for some) part of the fun....

But just sometimes, and not for everyone all the time...

[Captain Morgan]

The language that the designers used during the playtest was this: complexity is the currency with which you buy depth. Depth requires some level of complexity, but there are also "bad buys" that don't add much depth for the complexity they cost. PF2 tries to avoid those bad buys.

[totoro]

Unicore wrote:

Yeah, I don't recommend having new players make high level casters to start out with. PF2 spells generally do a good job of saying what they do, but it takes a long time to read through them and make sure that you understand all of the traits and specific terminology. But that was true in PF1 as well.

One issue brought up that I think is interesting is whether or not it is easy to trap yourself in a build that has no where to go as you level up in play. I think the theory crafter answer is absolutely, but I am wondering, if in play, it will become apparent enough when you reach those very dead levels for certain feats, or that your proficiency is falling so far behind that you are starting to get frustrated, that you will be able to train out of it organically enough to feel satisfied. That will largely depend upon GMs and will probably take months before actually new players reach those points, but they are things I would love for GMs and board followers to pay attention to and report back on.

I think low level casters are more problematic than high. Take the Demonic Sorcerer with Fear as a 1st Level spell. A new player might spend two actions casting it where an experienced player will use Demoralize with one action without using up a spell slot, and save the spell slot for heal or magic weapon. Casting the granted spell is a trap.

Retraining prevents traps to some extent, but unless you have a friendly GM, the granted spells of your bloodline are going to follow you all the way up.

[Ravingdork]

totoro wrote:

I think low level casters are more problematic than high. Take the Demonic Sorcerer with Fear as a 1st Level spell. A new player might spend two actions casting it where an experienced player will use Demoralize with one action without using up a spell slot, and save the spell slot for heal or magic weapon. Casting the granted spell is a trap.

I mean, it is if you bothered to train in Intimidate.

[lordcirth]

Ravingdork wrote:

totoro wrote:

I think low level casters are more problematic than high. Take the Demonic Sorcerer with Fear as a 1st Level spell. A new player might spend two actions casting it where an experienced player will use Demoralize with one action without using up a spell slot, and save the spell slot for heal or magic weapon. Casting the granted spell is a trap.

I mean, it is if you bothered to train in Intimidate.

The Demonic bloodline grants training in Intimidation and Religion, so you always will be.

However, Fear has the same effect on a successful save as Demoralize does on a successful intimidate, so it is stronger, though maybe not strong enough to be worthwhile to a Cha-based caster.

[Paradozen]

lordcirth wrote:

Ravingdork wrote:

totoro wrote:

I think low level casters are more problematic than high. Take the Demonic Sorcerer with Fear as a 1st Level spell. A new player might spend two actions casting it where an experienced player will use Demoralize with one action without using up a spell slot, and save the spell slot for heal or magic weapon. Casting the granted spell is a trap.

I mean, it is if you bothered to train in Intimidate.

The Demonic bloodline grants training in Intimidation and Religion, so you always will be.

However, Fear has the same effect on a successful save as Demoralize does on a successful intimidate, so it is stronger, though maybe not strong enough to be worthwhile to a Cha-based caster.

The enemy failing a save should generally be more likely than you critically succeeding against that save's DC, the success effect is a consolation prize. And you can only demoralize an enemy once, so fear works later in the fight.

[Captain Morgan]

Demoralize also can only really be used once per enemy. Fear doesn't have that limitation, so using the two in the same fight might come up.

[Perpdepog]

Uetur wrote:

My only complain is I am not seeing any sort of level by level grid similar to Starfinder, DnD5e, etc. showing BABs, saving throw modifiers, etc.

My guess for the lack of a grid is likely because everything scales off of the same basic formula of advancing along with your level and bumping up by +2s when your proficiency rises. That being said, I agree with this complaint. I'm not much of a 1-to-20 kind of a player in that I don't focus super far ahead when making builds, rather preferring to focus on a few things I might like and fill in the corners with roleplay flavor or what have you, but a few little things about the class I pick were not super obvious at a glance, like how long I'd need to be waiting until my saves advanced in level, or my weapons, or spells, etc. By and large the new feature tables are great, and mostly it's a non-issue because a lot of classes use similar names for advancements, like Lightning Reflexes meaning that your reflex save is going to expert, but the little +2s, or some other marker than the name, might have been handy as well.

Also, I helped an experienced PF player generate ability scores today. They went from confused to understanding in about, I want to say five to eight minutes?

[MercLordDeadboy]

Currently it has taken me about an hour per character. I'm sure that will get faster if I decide to stay with P2. Honestly, I'm not seeing much difference in the stats when it comes to characters. My group has done quite a few characters and there seems to be a pattern with the scores. Has anyone worked out a method for P1 style multiclassing? I'm working on a method and will be playtesting it with my group. Wasn't sure if someone came up with a method yet.

[Malk_Content]

One big distinction I saw with my groups is that regardless of previous experience with rpgs, those that had played modern video and boardgames had an easier time of those that didn't. Although its a very small sample size, so can't say with any certaintity, I think that many of the complained about issues (checking glossary for special traits etc) are things people who play a lot of heavy board games or mechanics laden videogames are already used to doing. My group spans 18 year olds to 40 year olds and I can see this trend moderately clearly (as I sit in the middle.)

I can see this being a positive choice for Paizo as rpgs becoming mainstream is largely being pulled along by board and video game increased popularity. Traits and glossaries are the tools the next few generations of roleplayers will be used to already.

[Cyouni]

totoro wrote:

Unicore wrote:

Yeah, I don't recommend having new players make high level casters to start out with. PF2 spells generally do a good job of saying what they do, but it takes a long time to read through them and make sure that you understand all of the traits and specific terminology. But that was true in PF1 as well.

One issue brought up that I think is interesting is whether or not it is easy to trap yourself in a build that has no where to go as you level up in play. I think the theory crafter answer is absolutely, but I am wondering, if in play, it will become apparent enough when you reach those very dead levels for certain feats, or that your proficiency is falling so far behind that you are starting to get frustrated, that you will be able to train out of it organically enough to feel satisfied. That will largely depend upon GMs and will probably take months before actually new players reach those points, but they are things I would love for GMs and board followers to pay attention to and report back on.

I think low level casters are more problematic than high. Take the Demonic Sorcerer with Fear as a 1st Level spell. A new player might spend two actions casting it where an experienced player will use Demoralize with one action without using up a spell slot, and save the spell slot for heal or magic weapon. Casting the granted spell is a trap.

Retraining prevents traps to some extent, but unless you have a friendly GM, the granted spells of your bloodline are going to follow you all the way up.

I'm not going to get into this, because it's a bit off-topic, but in addition to what others have mentioned, Fear is also stronger, being frightened 2 vs frightened 1. That means it lasts for an extra round, is an extra -1, has an effect even on failure, doesn't have the auditory component, and doesn't take a penalty if you're not speaking the same language. All of these are relevant.

Slightly more on-topic...
1) With a character builder (like Pathbuilder) at my fingertips, maybe 5 minutes? If I have to do the math and pull up references myself, maybe 10. Of course, this is assuming I have a general idea to actually put together.
For example, off the top of my head, my alchemist from 1E would be a Half-Elf Scholar Alchemist, with Chirurgeon. Class feat is Quick Bomber, and the main things she'd need is an alchemist's pregen pack and healer's kit. That's the main things done, and even with a book it'd take 5 minutes, most of which is page-flipping.
2) It depends on how high-level the character is. I did a 15th-level character a little while ago, and I'd say it took about an hour. I think the actual main choices took about 20 minutes, but I was using Pathbuilder, so had a lot easier access to what I needed to do at any particular time.
3) Pathbuilder.
4) There was one time in the playtest where a player came into the level 12 playtest scenario, was given Pathbuilder, and had a mostly-complete character in 15 minutes. He had played a decent amount of PF1, but had 0 experience or knowledge of the 2E ruleset.

[Phntm888]

Ravingdork wrote:

In Pathfinder, it could take me the better part of a day to make a fully fleshed out character of 3rd-level or higher, and maybe an hour or so for a 1st- or 2nd-level character.

In P2E, I find that, in my case at least, that hasn't really changed much (more on that below).

I'm curious to know what others' experiences with P2E character creation has been like.

1) How long does it take for you to build a 1st-level character?
2) How long does it take for you to build a higher level character?
3) Do you use online apps or other aids to expedite the process? If so, which ones, and how do they help?
4) What other notable experiences have you had with character building in P2E?

1) I think I'm down to about 20 minutes/character, with maybe a little extra time needed to pick spells and such if I have them.

2) This is harder to gauge - I haven't just made any higher level characters off the bat, merely planned out progressions for characters, but I'd say it would probably take me around an hour, maybe more depending on how much time I spent on magic items (shopping always takes me a long time).
3) Archives of Nethys and a Google Sheet to map out selections each level.
4) None - I haven't been able to arrange for my face to face group(s) to get together and give PF2 a try yet.

[Voss]

1st level 10 minutes or so, barring equipment beyond weapons, armor, and a bag of 'stuff.'

About double that for an 8th level character (which is what I usually so to get a feel for a concept- a level that's actually achievable in play)

Both are helped immensely by not using the steps listed in the book. I just do stats, skills, feats, spells, gear, regardless of where a skill or stat up comes from.

Slowest part is definitely skill feats, though often now I end up with same ones.

'Apps'- no. I'm rather baffled by concept of needing an 'aid' for a paper based activity.

Notable experiences- pf2 characters feel very samey. Its all mathematical outputs and very little flavor.