I've been thinking over what makes PF2 feel like a rollplaying game (using Justice and Rule's term). I think it is because all the options are so siloed. If I play an elven rogue, I pick elf and rogue feats. Elves and rouges may or may not have a certain ability. If they don't, I am out of luck. I am not freeing my imagination to create a character, I am picking from a rather closed menu. Some abilities are based on skill feats available to anyone, but this could be many, many more.

The second thing is something I mentioned above, that the rules create a world that feel ephemeral. There is not enough connection between the rules and the in-world image. The best example here is the one i already used; the only difference between large and small animal companions is the size of the playing piece.

The third is even more nebulous. In PF1 we used squares to move, had a zone of control (reach and AoO) and generally played an advanced boardgame. But that was somehow ok. In PF2 the same thing crossed some threshold to me, it became too gamey. This might just be lack of practice, I've been playing 3E, 3.5, and PF1 for decades and PF2 around 4 months.

All these points are subjective, they are how I feel. I am happy people don't agree because I still genuinely like Paizo.

ncG1vNJzZmivp6x7prrWqKmlnF6kv6h706GpnpmUqHyqv4yiq2asmaKybrLOq2SpnmJisrS%2FxKeropmcqHt3g5dqb2lnoJa0pnmY