Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[BryonD]

So the weirdness only matters to people that place value in underlying logic.

I think this goes a little to far. But, yeah, it is close enough. And I'll plead guilty to it.
To me that is all a game brings to the table - the "underlying logic". People at the table bring the story and emotions.

I also strongly believe that these issues emerge more and more as people play. When they are on their 4th or 9th character and, despite all kinds of different special abilities, the core math at 7th level is the same for all of them. And it shows. There are a ton of differences between 4E and PF2E. But this point is a similarity. And as 4E waned, that recurrence of the same math despite a vast array of possible powers was frequently cited (within my many anecdotes). PF2E is still new and shiny.

 

[dave2008]

It does get frustrating when someone keeps making the same claim while repeatedly refusing to respond to questions that are raised.

I guess I can understand both your and @kayman 's frustration. I've followed this post from the beginning and I honestly don't know what issues you have with PF2e other than "adherence to math." I feel Kayman has tried to show how the strict math hasn't impacted variety, which he seems to think is your issue. But is that your issue? IDK. I feel like you are both trying to respond honestly, you are just answering different questions?

 

[CapnZapp]

I certainly see the similarities between 4E and PF2 in how little your choices affect the numbers that matter.

In fact, I still have a hard time understanding why or how Paizo could choose to implement anything even close to WotC bombed edition...

My frustration isn't quite at the stage where I can be bothered to lay it all out, though. It does have some redeeming qualities, see - foremost it's monster design that is leaps and bounds ahead of 5E.

 

[dave2008]

...s, see - foremost it's monster design that is leaps and bounds ahead of 5E.

As a monster guy I want to inquire about this a bit more. What do you think is better about PF2e monster design? I understand that the system allows higher level creatures to be more of a threat (the whole level +3-5 thing), but that is system design. I also know 5e monsters have become more interesting since the MM. And I know my lack of PF2e system mastery affects my understanding of PF2e monsters (as you pointed out in my review of the bestiary thread). With all of that in mind, I don't see a lot of difference in the design of 5e monsters and the PF2e monsters. I see some that are better in PF2e and some that are better in 5e. In fact, I generally think any 5e monster with legendary actions is more interesting than the PF2e equivalent (on paper). Similarly, the orc (5e) and orc warrior (PF2e) look very similar. So @CapnZapp , what is it that you like about PF2e monsters so much?

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm comparing 5E and PF2 at launch.

I'm not one of those guys that doesn't accept criticism against an edition because some later book did something (not mentioning version numbers since this isn't about that). The core launch books are critical to a game's reception and I can't find any successful example where a publisher managed to right a ship launched badly.

So I do not exclude the Monster Manual when I talk about "5E".

I find that I have already found several PF2 monsters that have a) fun b) unexpected c) powerful abilities to a degree that far outshines my experience with 5E. And I'm still at level 8 monsters only!

I guess I would sum it up as "include only stuff that matters". I like a monster who can do a small number of distinctive things well enough to matter in my game. (Everything is relative of course - PF2 is a complex game, and I would understand if the pf2 stat block still is too cluttery for some people)

The PF2 Bestiary is still far from perfect. First and foremost, the lack of "NPC monsters" is catastrophic (that is, a couple dozen examples of "bandit" "cultist" "guard" "acolyte" or "barbarian", say). Next, again we have an edition just dumping spell lists for caster creatures. Sigh. I really long for the time where stat blocks are complete with abbreviated spell effects. (Remember PF2 contains loads and LOADS of spells, and not a single one works exactly as you remember from d20 or 5E)

The general level of competence is very refreshing and much appreciated, however. While the default rule ("level to proficiency") absurdly quickly leaves low level staples like goblins in the dust, I expect not adding level to proficiency fairly painlessly make that particular issue go away.

Zapp

PS. I guess I should mention the elephant in the room - not making monsters follow PC chargen rules. That is of course critical to making a game DM-able. The experience of spending an hour to craft a high-level spellcaster that died in the first combat round without taking a single action was the definitive reason why I dropped d20 and 3rd Edition.

 

[dave2008]

I'm comparing 5E and PF2 at launch.

So I do not exclude the Monster Manual when I talk about "5E".

I get that, of course I am not going to exclude monsters just because the came out after the MM.

I find that I have already found several PF2 monsters that have a) fun b) unexpected c) powerful abilities to a degree that far outshines my experience with 5E. And I'm still at level 8 monsters only!

Unfortunately, I haven't had the chance to play PF2e yet, but just looking through the MM and bestiary I don't see that. I do think 5e monster design is lacking in "powerful abilities" though. I've been perusing the Bestiary while waiting for your response and I have seen a few fun things in high level monsters. I prefer the PF2e balor to 5e balor for example, though despite not really liking 5e dragons I prefer them to PF2e dragons (at least the ancient ones). I also prefer the 5e aboleth to the PF2e version. I also don't see anything special in the orc warrior to make me think its better than the 5e orc. I guess it is a case by case thing. Regardless, glad you are enjoying them!

I guess I would sum it up as "include only stuff that matters". I like a monster who can do a small number of distinctive things well enough to matter in my game. (Everything is relative of course - PF2 is a complex game, and I would understand if the pf2 stat block still is too cluttery for some people)

I agree with that and it is basically the 4e and 5e philosophy as well. I do like to have some extra stuff beyond the essentials too though, but realize that is not the best for a "game."

The PF2 Bestiary is still far from perfect. First and foremost, the lack of "NPC monsters" is catastrophic (that is, a couple dozen examples of "bandit" "cultist" "guard" "acolyte" or "barbarian", say). Next, again we have an edition just dumping spell lists for caster creatures. Sigh. I really long for the time where stat blocks are complete with abbreviated spell effects. (Remember PF2 contains loads and LOADS of spells, and not a single one works exactly as you remember from d20 or 5E)

Interestingly, the new 5e standard (it appears) is to include a spell description of a signature spell from the spell list in the Actions section of the stat block. Maybe PF2e will move this way as well. I will say using the online PF2e SRD which links to the spells in the monster stat block mitigates this issue somewhat.

The general level of competence is very refreshing and much appreciated, ....

I just haven't seen it to be much different form 5e at this point (from a monster design perspective). Perhaps it is an issue of a small thing on paper is magnified in play. I guess playing is believing!

 

[CapnZapp]

The big thing is the shift away from "player character supremacy".

You can't easily see the ramifications of going from, what, 67% success rate on average in 5E to 50% in PF2. Monsters are generally outclassed in 5E (not your creations thou ) but not in PF2. 5E monsters simply aren't built to handle characters equipped with all the goodies the PHB liberally hands out like candy.

In stark contrast to the Monster Manual, the Bestiary comes across as written by people that knows exactly what PCs can do.

Add the impact of level to PF2 coupled with the different rule for criticals, and you have a world of change. PF2 monsters are dangerous. Their abilities are to be respected.

I can easily see how that doesn't exactly leap off the page when you just browse.

Cheers

 

[Zaukrie]

Simple things in teh PF2 bestiary, like giving humanoid monsters all ranges of attacks (ranged, melee options) instead of saying a skeleton only does one of those. It just simplifies things to have them there. I know I could do it on my own, but this way I don't have to.

But, I admit, the big delta for me is that the monsters seem more dangerous to me. But that's probably more game design and principle than monster specific design.

 

[dave2008]

The big thing is the shift away from "player character supremacy".

You can't easily see the ramifications of going from, what, 67% success rate on average in 5E to 50% in PF2. Monsters are generally outclassed in 5E (not your creations thou ) but not in PF2. 5E monsters simply aren't built to handle characters equipped with all the goodies the PHB liberally hands out like candy.

In stark contrast to the Monster Manual, the Bestiary comes across as written by people that knows exactly what PCs can do.

Add the impact of level to PF2 coupled with the different rule for criticals, and you have a world of change. PF2 monsters are dangerous. Their abilities are to be respected.

I can easily see how that doesn't exactly leap off the page when you just browse.

Cheers

Yes, I see those as system changes not monster design items myself Basically, if you converted 5e monsters to PF2e they would be much the same as PF2e monsters (with some exceptions of course). The underlying system math really favors deadly monsters (which I like). I wonder if that can be a simply added to 5e monsters / encounter design?

 

[dave2008]

Simple things in teh PF2 bestiary, like giving humanoid monsters all ranges of attacks (ranged, melee options) instead of saying a skeleton only does one of those. It just simplifies things to have them there. I know I could do it on my own, but this way I don't have to.

Yes i have notice that as well and I like it. Most humanoids have a punch or claw attack in addition to a weapon attack as well. It is nice to have it in case you need it.

But, I admit, the big delta for me is that the monsters seem more dangerous to me. But that's probably more game design and principle than monster specific design.

Yes, that is how i look at it too.