Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[dave2008]

You always have to check level. You can't play DM D&D without having a general idea what level a critter is.

Yes and no. I have an idea of a monster's "level" from playing D&D for 30 years, but it is not as explicit as what it seems you need in PF2e. Generally in 5e if I know the "tier" that is good enough, Basically each tier difference in 5e is semi-equivalent to a level difference in PF2e. That just gives me a much bigger range to work worth at any given time.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes and no. I have an idea of a monster's "level" from playing D&D for 30 years, but it is not as explicit as what it seems you need in PF2e. Generally in 5e if I know the "tier" that is good enough, Basically each tier difference in 5e is semi-equivalent to a level difference in PF2e. That just gives me a much bigger range to work worth at any given time.

This is because you add a number between 1 and 20 to pretty much everything (except damage) in Pathfinder 2, but not in 5E.

Not doing that should bring the experience of playing each game much closer, even if the differing baselines would remain.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Good points, it is not my group and they are probably not up for it. However, I am fascinated because the design is so close to what I thought was the "ideal" D&D game that I want to give it a try.

You can always VTT it as a player if you can find a group or a one-shot. I have found that online the game can slow down considerably.

 

[FrozenNorth]

And if you run PF2 using proficiency without level, that's pretty much all you need to keep in mind. That is, you no longer get tripped up by the artificial issue I was referring to - how even a single L+2 monster can turn a "fair" fight into hell when played RAW.

Wouldn’t that screw things up from a
Treat Wounds perspective? Starting at level 5 or so, the Basic Treat Wounds won’t cut it, but the 1d20 is too swingy to reliably hit the Expert Treat Wounds.

 

[CapnZapp]

Wouldn’t that screw things up from a Treat Wounds perspective? Starting at level 5 or so, the Basic Treat Wounds won’t cut it, but the 1d20 is too swingy to reliably hit the Expert Treat Wounds.

A peculiarly specific example.

In general I'd say not adding level to proficiency screws up... nothing. It does mean some tasks become slightly easier or more difficult depending on your level and the task's level, or, as the GMG says: "The new DCs make it a little harder for high-level characters to succeed than it would be when using the default numbers from the Core Rulebook, in keeping with the theme mentioned earlier."

Here are the "simple" DCs for task difficulties with and without level (to proficiency):

Proficiency Rank	With (default)	Without (variant)
Untrained	10	10
Trained	15	15
Expert	20	20
Master	30	25
Legendary	40	30

As you can see, the Treat Wounds DC doesn't change (for Expert proficiency), so you'll probably stick a bit longer to 2d8 healing before you aspire to the 2d8+10 level.

 

[CapnZapp]

More in general, if a level 6 challenge makes you do a DC 22 save or check, you would now no longer include the six points from level "built into" that number 22.

So you'd instead use 22-6=16.

You will of course realize this makes DCs by level nearly static. Saving against a monster's spells. Hitting their AC. Whatever.

Before the DCs for levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 were 15, 20, 27, 34 and 40.
Now the DCs for levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 become 15, 15, 17, 19 and 20.

Only the few points that mirror increased proficiency rank remain. You don't get a strange or dodgy system. You get basically 5E, which works just great.

(Don't get stuck on the fact that Expert, Master and Legendary DCs are now 5, 7, and 10 steps higher than the "corresponding" level DCs. )

 

[dave2008]

More in general, if a level 6 challenge makes you do a DC 22 save or check, you would now no longer include the six points from level "built into" that number 22.

So you'd instead use 22-6=16.

You will of course realize this makes DCs by level nearly static. Saving against a monster's spells. Hitting their AC. Whatever.

Before the DCs for levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 were 15, 20, 27, 34 and 40.
Now the DCs for levels 1, 5, 10, 15 and 20 become 15, 15, 17, 19 and 20.

Only the few points that mirror increased proficiency rank remain. You don't get a strange or dodgy system. You get basically 5E, which works just great.

(Don't get stuck on the fact that Expert, Master and Legendary DCs are now 5, 7, and 10 steps higher than the "corresponding" level DCs. )

This applies to monsters too correct? So in effect it stretches out the range of monsters you can use correct? No wait, that doesn't make sense. You know the system much better Cap, does this change the +3 level difficulty of monsters?

 

[CapnZapp]

Yes of course. If the Core Rulebook talks about using monsters from L-4 to L+4, the Gamemastery Guide (in the variant) talks about using L-7 to L+7.

Which I'm sure you recognize from 5E (give or take).

 

[Celtavian]

Never had this problem, but I came from 1e when monsters had even less going for them. I never have any issue with making monsters do interesting things. With 4e and now 5e i've got the tools to make improvisation easy.
Not a problem with my group. In my 5e games (6 years worth) I have not had a bard, warlock, paladin, barbarian, sorcerer, or cleric. We do enjoy trying out all the UA feats and not the variant features though.[/quote[

No one has played any of those classes? That is surprising.

Interesting, I really enjoyed DMing 4e, it is what brought me back to D&D. The DMG 42 was a revelation and really helped my DM game. It was also the edition that gave me the freedom to explore and really amped up my improve game.

Not even sure what page 42 is. If it is that whole DM empowerment page, I never needed to be told such things. I do what I want to get done what I want. If I make the game fun, then the players go with it. I'm a bit of a mix of wanting a good story and challenging mechanics. I don't like to sacrifice either element.

I think it is clear our DM styles and player groups are too different. Not really much we can do for each other. Based on that (and other things) I am guessing my group really wouldn't like PF2e, but I still hope to give a try.

I'm sure they'd give it a shot if you wanted to DM it and you made it fun. At the end of the day that is often what makes or breaks these systems, enough DMs willing to run the game that can make a given system fun for their players. Maybe pick of Fall of Plaguestone, grab a few players that like to try new systems, and run a few sessions from 1st to 3rd or 4th. See if you like it. It plays better than it reads.

When I first read PF2, I thought it was going to be super boring. It looked like some watered down version of PF1 mixed with 5E. Only one of my buddies was enthused to try it, so he motivated us all to give it a shot. Then we played it and starting seeing all these weird little rule interactions that made the game play in such an interesting way that was different than what we were used to. You might enjoy it if you can find a few system testers who like to try new things. Doesn't sound like you'll give up 5E or anything, but you might at least find a system you like to run for something different on occasion.

 

[dave2008]

No one has played any of those classes? That is surprising.

Nope. We have had lots of fighters, a ranger, a few rogues, a wizard, and a druid. That is it in 6 years of 5e.

Not even sure what page 42 is. If it is that whole DM empowerment page, I never needed to be told such things. I do what I want to get done what I want. If I make the game fun, then the players go with it. I'm a bit of a mix of wanting a good story and challenging mechanics. I don't like to sacrifice either element.

No, it is a page with tables that help adjudicate improve. Not a lot, but helpful. 5e actually has more helpful tables and info for this, but it is spread around the DMG. I keep meaning to compile it, but if I haven;t done so in 6 years I probably will not.

I'm sure they'd give it a shot if you wanted to DM it and you made it fun. At the end of the day that is often what makes or breaks these systems, enough DMs willing to run the game that can make a given system fun for their players. Maybe pick of Fall of Plaguestone, grab a few players that like to try new systems, and run a few sessions from 1st to 3rd or 4th. See if you like it. It plays better than it reads.

I am more likely to play it myself first. My current group is having a blast with our modified 5e, I don't see a need to change that for my personal interest at this point. I would also need a bit of system mastery that I don;t have to bring in some of our house-rules. I am also not good with running published adventures, never have been. I would likely need to run my own, which is fine.

When I first read PF2, I thought it was going to be super boring. It looked like some watered down version of PF1 mixed with 5E. Only one of my buddies was enthused to try it, so he motivated us all to give it a shot. Then we played it and starting seeing all these weird little rule interactions that made the game play in such an interesting way that was different than what we were used to. You might enjoy it if you can find a few system testers who like to try new things. Doesn't sound like you'll give up 5E or anything, but you might at least find a system you like to run for something different on occasion.

I hope to give it a try. My current group as played 1e, 4e, and 5e, So they are definitely willing to try new systems, it is just our current play style seems very different from the reports I hear about PF2e. I think it is best for me to give a try first and then get the group to try a 1-shot adventure at some point. We do that sometimes.