Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[CapnZapp]

Got it. You are exactly right on the approach to rules language.

PF2 throws a MASSIVE amount of text at the reader, so when I encountered something that the rules assume, I wasn't in the head space to see it. I was expecting to be explicitly told.

To be fair, almost every edition has at least one of these. (Where the devs thought they were clear, but clearly weren't )

 

[dave2008]

I guess I just prefer terminology that lets me avoid statements like "there is almost no difference in the 5e orc and the PF2e orc warrior" since such a statement - taken in isolation - means a reader is likely to be misled completely.

Have you tried taking a 5e orc or bugbear and dropping it into a PF2e game? Or vice versa?

 

[Philip Benz]

In PF2 I have witnessed a single Bugbear (with just three Goblin civilians to assist) wreck an entire party just one level lower than it.

I like the fact that in PF2 monsters are actually dangerous again. And it encourages players to think harder about clever tactics, as well as looking for non-combat solutions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Have you tried taking a 5e orc or bugbear and dropping it into a PF2e game? Or vice versa?

No, I have only run 5E monsters in 5E and PF2 monsters in PF2.

 

[dave2008]

No, I have only run 5E monsters in 5E and PF2 monsters in PF2.

I may give it a try if I get chance to play PF2e. I can of course grab a PF2e monster or two and try it out in my 5e game and see how it goes.

 

[BryonD]

I like the fact that in PF2 monsters are actually dangerous again. And it encourages players to think harder about clever tactics, as well as looking for non-combat solutions.

I don't agree that this is a credit to PF2E. In 5E or PF1E, or pretty much any system you can easily throw dangerous encounters at a party. If you went through the 5E monster manual and subtracted 1 from the CR of every creature, they would not be any more dangerous. The metric for how to apply them would have moved, but the encounters would play out exactly the same. Fudging the scale to more deadly should make no difference to a good GM. The GM should just apply the scale appropriately and create a fun game.

I do think it is appropriate to keep in mind that PF2E has a steeper slope around the intended sweet spot and encounters become trivial or become "plot device" difficult very readily.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't agree that this is a credit to PF2E. In 5E or PF1E, or pretty much any system you can easily throw dangerous encounters at a party. If you went through the 5E monster manual and subtracted 1 from the CR of every creature, they would not be any more dangerous. The metric for how to apply them would have moved, but the encounters would play out exactly the same. Fudging the scale to more deadly should make no difference to a good GM. The GM should just apply the scale appropriately and create a fun game.

Just picking a CR 9 monster in 5E and dropping it into an encounter like it was a CR 5 monster does make things more dangerous of course, but in a coarse simplistic bag-o'-hitpoints way.

So I do credit PF2 with making monsters actually dangerous again, since PF2 definitely does not merely add five or so to every monster attack roll, calling it a day.

 

[BryonD]

I think you missed my point. If the monsters are more dangerous relative to the party then you can simply change the CR of the monster. How or why one monster is more dangerous than another isn't important if the CRs are "right". And "right" is a completely relative term. In one game a CR = level monster can be a cakewalk and in another a tough fight. So long as a given game is consistent, it doesn't really matter.

That said, I don't accept that I can't use monsters which are every bit as diverse, nuanced, or interesting in 5E or PF1E. It would seem odd to me to claim otherwise.

 

[dave2008]

Just picking a CR 9 monster in 5E and dropping it into an encounter like it was a CR 5 monster does make things more dangerous of course, but in a coarse simplistic bag-o'-hitpoints way.

Well that assumes you are dropping in a monster without interesting things to do. There are lots of 5e monsters with interesting things to do. I will agree that the MM has less of those than later books, but they are there.

However, though I think your overall point is valid, I do have a question regarding something you have brought up a few times. You often say PF2e monsters have the tricks and abilities to handle what the PCs throw at them. What would those be? What does the orc warrior, goblin warrior, kobold warrior, astral deva, balor, red dragon, aboleth, fire giant, or any other monster have that makes it well suited to deal with PCs. Unfortunately, I am not as familiar with PCs abilities (to many feats!) so I am not generally aware of the capabilities of PF2e PCs. However, I am not seeing things in the stat blocks that jump out to me. I see some fun things, but not vast improvements over what I see in 5e monsters, and sometimes definitely less interesting.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you missed my point.

I likely did. If you didn't mean to deny Pathfinder 2 credit for making monsters dangerous "again" (I'm assuming Philip Benz is talking about 5E, not PF1), I'm all ears.

That said, I don't accept that I can't use monsters which are every bit as diverse, nuanced, or interesting in 5E or PF1E. It would seem odd to me to claim otherwise.

Of course you can. I'm talking about stock monsters right out the gate, not your personal creations. You can definitely create 5E monsters that are competent and scary, it's just that WotC failed (or didn't want to) to do so. For instance, had I been courageous enough to use Dave2008's fifth edition monsters in my 5E campaigns, my players would likely have called PF2 monsters wimps