Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E or Pathfinder 1E?

Ancalagon said:

Erm... are you claiming that 5e is not suitable for high epic fantasy because of bounded accuracy?

Click to expand...

Bounded Accuracy is another way of saying that characters don't grow significantly over the course of the game. There isn't much that a level 20 fighter can do, that a level 1 fighter can't also do with slightly less reliability. They are both capable of accomplishing difficult tasks (DC 20), or failing at easy ones (DC 13).

Contrast with Pathfinder, where a level 20 character can accomplish things that a level 1 character could not even attempt (DC 40), and has no chance of failing easy checks (DC 20). High-level characters feel much more epic, compared to the world around them. Characters in 5E are much more grounded.

CapnZapp said:

You don't sound much like a Pathfinder fan... Actually, 5E sounds like the perfect game for you!

Click to expand...

Is Pathfinder 2 aimed at existing Pathfinder fans, who prefer that game over 5E, because of its idiosyncracies? Or is it aimed at former fans of Pathfinder, who want a reason to go back, but want them to fix their faults first?

Saelorn said:

Bounded Accuracy is another way of saying that characters don't grow significantly over the course of the game. There isn't much that a level 20 fighter can do, that a level 1 fighter can't also do with slightly less reliability. They are both capable of accomplishing difficult tasks (DC 20), or failing at easy ones (DC 13).

Contrast with Pathfinder, where a level 20 character can accomplish things that a level 1 character could not even attempt (DC 40), and has no chance of failing easy checks (DC 20). High-level characters feel much more epic, compared to the world around them. Characters in 5E are much more grounded.

Click to expand...

But is that the way it really works on practice? The kinds of threats that would challenge a level 1 character aren't part of the world for a level 20 Pathfinder character (or even a level 10 character). In typical campaign, such as the one presented in Paizo adventure paths, the challenges scale up in tandem with PC advancement, in a carefully managed band of difficulty. The fact a level 10 Pathfinder PC could utterly destroy a bunch of goblins is a theoretical feature of the game, not a practical one.

If we're comparing the kinds of campaigns the two systems support, we should recognize that bounded accuracy means sandbox campaigns are feasible in 5E in a way they aren't in Pathfinder. A party of level 5 PCs in 5E will face many kinds of challenges as they explored the Elder Wilds, with everything from gnolls to manticores to hydras in play as worthwhile encounters. For that to work in Pathfinder, the GM would have to restrict the PCs to locations and encounters that are tailored to their level.

So I don't see bounded accuracy as a way to make 5E characters less heroic - by mid-level 5E characters are lordly ass-kickers of the highest order compared to town guards, run of the mill knights, and bandits. Instead, I see bounded accuracy as a way to make sandboxy campaigns and adventures more feasible.

Saelorn said:

Is Pathfinder 2 aimed at existing Pathfinder fans, who prefer that game over 5E, because of its idiosyncracies? Or is it aimed at former fans of Pathfinder, who want a reason to go back, but want them to fix their faults first?

Click to expand...

Presumably both. Existing fans could have areas of the game they'd like to see fixed or improved. Former fans might miss the things Pathfinder did better than 5E, but want a game that's easier to run at the table. And both groups might enjoy new mechanics that were never on their radar but turn out to be fun in play.

Haffrung said:

But is that the way it really works on practice? The kinds of threats that would challenge a level 1 character aren't part of the world for a level 20 Pathfinder character (or even a level 10 character). In typical campaign, such as the one presented in Paizo adventure paths, the challenges scale up in tandem with PC advancement, in a carefully managed band of difficulty. The fact a level 10 Pathfinder PC could utterly destroy a bunch of goblins is a theoretical feature of the game, not a practical one.

Click to expand...

In any game I've ever played, the world at large remains the same, regardless of whether you're level 1 or level 10. It's not like the level 10 party goes walking through the forest, and all of the goblins are suddenly replaced by ogres. High level characters are objectively much more epic than level 1 characters, but that comparison only means anything if the world itself remains objective.

If you're playing through a linear adventure, then it doesn't matter whether or not your stats improve much, because your opposition is tailored to provide a challenge. You'll never be very impressive, next to what's in front of you. In a sandbox game, though, you actually do have the opportunity to do amazing things - because you're as likely to encounter a low-level obstacle as a high-level one. A powerful sorcerer can take over an empire, because the NPCs don't automatically scale up to oppose them, so your massive bonus to Diplomacy checks can actually mean something. An epic fighter can reliably climb a smooth wall, because the wall doesn't suddenly develop a teflon coating when a high-level character approaches it.

Bounded Accuracy exists so that high-level characters can still be challenged by easy tasks, which is mutually exclusive with high-level characters stomping all over easy tasks by virtue of their epic power.

Pathfinder in sandbox mode is a lot like Exalted. The GM asks you to roll in order to do a thing, and you succeed by some unreasonably huge margin, because you're amazing.

Ancalagon said:

Erm... are you claiming that 5e is not suitable for high epic fantasy because of bounded accuracy?

Click to expand...

It's a different scope and scale. I don't think you could deny that the implied fantasy levels engendered from 3e and 5e rules differ. Pathfinder 1 and 2 extend that (to varying degrees), while 5e tones it down considerably. Bounded Accuracy was part of that: the desire to extend the shelf-life of lower level threats to parties as they increased levels. PF2 is explicitly taking a different approach: they want the higher level heroes to mow through lower level threats. When your attack bonus goes up with level while the low level opponents' AC remains stagnant, then your crits (and what you can do with them) become far more common.

This was also fairly clear from when Paizo was talking about skills and such in Pathfinder 2. What could be achieved through some skills were magnitudes more than what they could with comparable skills in 5e. In some regards, we could almost say that Pathfinder 2 operates on a "(relative) zero to mythic hero" scale.

There are many valid criticisms that a pathfinder fan could make to explain why 5e doesn't work for them, but I don't think that this is one.

Click to expand...

I would not call myself a Pathfinder fan.

Can someone explain how you can do more with skills in PF2e compared to the same skills in 5e? On initial thought I cant see it. Acrobatics is acrobatics is acrobatics. Athletics is a bit of general term that could cover a multitude of things. In my opinion the creativity falls on the players and DM to see it and make sense of it. You dont really need a hard and fast rule to say you can only do activity A with skill A. This is something I see complained about often here but I cant wrap my head around it being an issue. In my opinion your character is only as unique as you Invision him/her to be.

MockingBird said:

Can someone explain how you can do more with skills in PF2e compared to the same skills in 5e? On initial thought I cant see it. Acrobatics is acrobatics is acrobatics. Athletics is a bit of general term that could cover a multitude of things. In my opinion the creativity falls on the players and DM to see it and make sense of it. You dont really need a hard and fast rule to say you can only do activity A with skill A. This is something I see complained about often here but I cant wrap my head around it being an issue. In my opinion your character is only as unique as you Invision him/her to be.

Click to expand...

For example, with a epic level of acrobatics you could fall from kilometers of height and landing safely

As someone who has DMed several 5e games for a few years, I can say that my experience with bonded accuracy makes progress seem slow. There is little change between levels.
I would honestly love some treasure guidelines. I have no idea what to give to the party. I've run games where the players thought I was a miser and others where I overloaded the party with magical treasure.

Haffrung said:

But is that the way it really works on practice? The kinds of threats that would challenge a level 1 character aren't part of the world for a level 20 Pathfinder character (or even a level 10 character). In typical campaign, such as the one presented in Paizo adventure paths, the challenges scale up in tandem with PC advancement, in a carefully managed band of difficulty. The fact a level 10 Pathfinder PC could utterly destroy a bunch of goblins is a theoretical feature of the game, not a practical one.

If we're comparing the kinds of campaigns the two systems support, we should recognize that bounded accuracy means sandbox campaigns are feasible in 5E in a way they aren't in Pathfinder. A party of level 5 PCs in 5E will face many kinds of challenges as they explored the Elder Wilds, with everything from gnolls to manticores to hydras in play as worthwhile encounters. For that to work in Pathfinder, the GM would have to restrict the PCs to locations and encounters that are tailored to their level.

So I don't see bounded accuracy as a way to make 5E characters less heroic - by mid-level 5E characters are lordly ass-kickers of the highest order compared to town guards, run of the mill knights, and bandits. Instead, I see bounded accuracy as a way to make sandboxy campaigns and adventures more feasible.

Click to expand...

They did the EXACT same things in AD&D where accuracy was not bounded. It did not have the limits anywhere as small as 5e does. They could still have a sandbox where the 1st level adventurers find a Hill Giant (or worse...a Titan, or maybe even Orcus by accident!!!) but the play style was different.

They were NOT EXPECTED to actually fight and KILL everything they meet. The entire challenge levels where appropriate is a new age gaming idea. Originally, characters didn't necessarily have to fight or even be able to scratch everything they met. Many times, the smartest move was to run away rather than to fight, or to sneak around and find an alternative rather than trying to kill something.

It's not that PF or AD&D or any other game prevents a sandbox, but rather the type of playstyle that a group wishes to conduct while in that sandbox.

Saelorn said:

In any game I've ever played, the world at large remains the same, regardless of whether you're level 1 or level 10. It's not like the level 10 party goes walking through the forest, and all of the goblins are suddenly replaced by ogres. High level characters are objectively much more epic than level 1 characters, but that comparison only means anything if the world itself remains objective.

If you're playing through a linear adventure, then it doesn't matter whether or not your stats improve much, because your opposition is tailored to provide a challenge. You'll never be very impressive, next to what's in front of you. In a sandbox game, though, you actually do have the opportunity to do amazing things - because you're as likely to encounter a low-level obstacle as a high-level one. A powerful sorcerer can take over an empire, because the NPCs don't automatically scale up to oppose them, so your massive bonus to Diplomacy checks can actually mean something. An epic fighter can reliably climb a smooth wall, because the wall doesn't suddenly develop a teflon coating when a high-level character approaches it.

Bounded Accuracy exists so that high-level characters can still be challenged by easy tasks, which is mutually exclusive with high-level characters stomping all over easy tasks by virtue of their epic power.

Pathfinder in sandbox mode is a lot like Exalted. The GM asks you to roll in order to do a thing, and you succeed by some unreasonably huge margin, because you're amazing.

Click to expand...

And in conjunction with what was said above, once again 5e also lends itself to the type of playstyle that one wants in their game. 5e is also perfect for a type of sandbox one wants to play, and just because you may be able to scratch that legendary dragon...you will probably still be absolutely destroyed by it if you are low level.

However, at 20th level you are very capable to do many things your low level self could not. It may not be mutually exclusive in that you could raise an army to destroy something in 5e that even an army of low levels could not even dream of in another game system (like Pathfinder), but it falls to the style of play that one wants to have.

A Sandbox is just as easily enjoyable and playable in 5e as it is in any other system. Once again, it merely falls to the group and what STYLE of play they wish to have in their campaign in regards to the Sandbox (if they wish to play in a sandbox).