Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[CapnZapp]

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?

You have completely lost me here.

5E and PF2 is built differently, yes. But how is a decision to make monsters competent and well-equipped not monster design?

My experience with 5E was that the PHB headed out abilities that made heroes run circles around monsters. To me, that suggests anemic monster design, as if the MM designers only saw the boilerplate fighter with no bells and whistles and made monsters to face that. Then, when class abilities, feats, spells, charop and party tactics are added, monsters just stand there like chumps to be mowed down at leisure. At times, I shook my head: how could anyone think this to be a challenge?!

PF2 couldn't be more different. Even two dozen sessions in, I still get amazed with what the devs consider a monster of, say, PL+2. Yikes, how deadly things are! I'm constantly reminded to stick to the guidelines or risk a TPK. I never got that feeling in 5E, where the guidelines were utter drek.

Call that whatever kind of design you like. Myself I associate it with the Bestiary more than the CRB, so I'll keep calling it "monster design" for short of you don't mind! [emoji846]

 

[BryonD]

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?

IMO multiple attempts to ask direct questions have been met with repeated with changing of the subject and other evasions.

I'm 100% cool with difference of opinion. And I believe that I've stated multiple time that I respect that PF2E serves a preference. But in turn I've received claims that my point of view can't possibly be valid. He has been quite honest with how and why he supports the game, but I can't say that about his comments in response to my complaints and questions.

I'll reiterate a very brief version since you asked, but please understand that I'm really not looking to return to the start of the debate. Quite simply, PF2E puts the math first and I want a mechanical system that puts the narrative first. The way the system builds modifiers and targets is based dominantly on putting those values in the permissible range based on level and then fine tuning a bit to character customization. As a result you get mechanical models that are unsatisfying. Other games offer a much stronger focus on narrative informing the math as a priority.

 

[BryonD]

I expect not adding level to proficiency fairly painlessly make that particular issue go away.

I played with this some because there are things about PF2E I do really like. But the system is built with that +level concept baked into the foundation.

Yes, it is very easy to simply apply a -level to everything, canceling out the +level effect. And you will get modifiers and targets. In some ways it really transforms into a bounded accuracy type game with HP, damage boosts and other special powers defining the difference. But it also gets wonky in a lot of little ways. The game is simply built assuming the +level paradigm and removal impacts how it plays. It "functions", but the results are not satisfying. Ultimately, it is easier to adapt ideas from PF2E into other games (3AE is particularly easy) than it is to unring the +level bell in PF2E.

 

[GlassJaw]

I haven't followed this thread too closely but I've been taking a look at PF2 lately. I am a 5E player and someone who wants more choice in 5E. So I've been looking to see if there's anything to salvage to add customization options to 5E.

From what I've seen so far, I rated it Average. That rating needs a lot of clarification however.

First impression: TONS of options. No design stone has been left unturned. There is no doubt that the design team focused on innovation and rethinking every system from the ground up. Lots of innovation.

However, as I delve deeper, the options and minutia become distracting. Every step of character creation is a choice that requires a level of system mastery. Every rule and system is a multi-step process to understand execute. And to boot, the book is a chore to read.

Deconstructing every class into a multitude of feat choices is a HUGE miss for me. On casual glance, I can't get a feel for the classes, and the scope of choices within each class makes comparison of one choice to another extremely difficult. Also, why am I forced into one choice at each level? What if I want 2 feats from level 1 instead of a choice at level 2? Design choices like that really bother me.

There is a lot I like. I like the expanded uses of skills system. I like (some) of the weapon and armor properties. I like the critical success and failure of skills and spells.

But it feels like an exercise in extremes. PF2 is massively over-designed. I appreciate the drive to innovate, I really do. But it feels like along the way, the drive to innovate superseded playability.

PF2 pushes the d20 system to new limits but is in desperate need of an editor.

 

[dave2008]

You have completely lost me here.

You mentioned success rate, criticals, and + level as contributing factors which I see as system design.

5E and PF2 is built differently, yes. But how is a decision to make monsters competent and well-equipped not monster design?

It is, but that is were I generally disagree with you. I see many monsters in 5e that are better equipped than their PF2e counterparts. And there are many PF2e monsters that are better equipped and there are many that are similar. I ado agree that as @Zaukrie noted PF2e generally gives each monster a range of attack options, which I think is generally better design.

My experience with 5E was that the PHB headed out abilities that made heroes run circles around monsters. To me, that suggests anemic monster design, as if the MM designers only saw the boilerplate fighter with no bells and whistles and made monsters to face that. Then, when class abilities, feats, spells, charop and party tactics are added, monsters just stand there like chumps to be mowed down at leisure. At times, I shook my head: how could anyone think this to be a challenge?!

I don't necessarily disagree, but I think it was the correct approach for that game. I know that the 5e monsters don't work for you, but they routinely challenge my group. I think the issue is the system allows for a huge gulf between groups playing the same game and they haven't provided any advice on how to adjust monsters / encounters to accommodate those differences. I guess I see that as system design, but it can be monster design too I guess.

PF2 couldn't be more different. Even two dozen sessions in, I still get amazed with what the devs consider a monster of, say, PL+2. Yikes, how deadly things are! I'm constantly reminded to stick to the guidelines or risk a TPK. I never got that feeling in 5E, where the guidelines were utter drek.

Yep, I agree here - but again, to me that is the guidelines, not the monsters themselves.

Call that whatever kind of design you like. Myself I associate it with the Bestiary more than the CRB, so I'll keep calling it "monster design" for short of you don't mind! [emoji846]

I guess I just disagree with this viewpoint. I think if I take a PF2e monster and play it in a 5e game, it will play very much like a 5e monster. And if I take a 5e monster and play it in PF2e game it will play very much like a PF2e monster. If they played very differently, that would, to me, indicate a difference in monster design.

I do want to be clear, I definitely thin there are some general things and specific monsters that are better in PF2e than 5e; but I don't see the vast difference you describe. To me, that vast difference is in the system and encounter guidelines.

 

[ikos]

I haven't followed this thread too closely but I've been taking a look at PF2 lately. I am a 5E player and someone who wants more choice in 5E. So I've been looking to see if there's anything to salvage to add customization options to 5E.

From what I've seen so far, I rated it Average. That rating needs a lot of clarification however.

First impression: TONS of options. No design stone has been left unturned. There is no doubt that the design team focused on innovation and rethinking every system from the ground up. Lots of innovation.

However, as I delve deeper, the options and minutia become distracting. Every step of character creation is a choice that requires a level of system mastery. Every rule and system is a multi-step process to understand execute. And to boot, the book is a chore to read.

Deconstructing every class into a multitude of feat choices is a HUGE miss for me. On casual glance, I can't get a feel for the classes, and the scope of choices within each class makes comparison of one choice to another extremely difficult. Also, why am I forced into one choice at each level? What if I want 2 feats from level 1 instead of a choice at level 2? Design choices like that really bother me.

There is a lot I like. I like the expanded uses of skills system. I like (some) of the weapon and armor properties. I like the critical success and failure of skills and spells.

But it feels like an exercise in extremes. PF2 is massively over-designed. I appreciate the drive to innovate, I really do. But it feels like along the way, the drive to innovate superseded playability.

PF2 pushes the d20 system to new limits but is in desperate need of an editor.

I agree with much of what you’ve said, but, for clarity, you -can- instead choose to take a lower level feat in lieu of a higher.

 

[dave2008]

IMO multiple attempts to ask direct questions have been met with repeated with changing of the subject and other evasions.

I guess I've tried to see that but I'm missing it too. I just haven't seen a direct question. However,...

I'll reiterate a very brief version since you asked, but please understand that I'm really not looking to return to the start of the debate. Quite simply, PF2E puts the math first and I want a mechanical system that puts the narrative first. The way the system builds modifiers and targets is based dominantly on putting those values in the permissible range based on level and then fine tuning a bit to character customization. As a result you get mechanical models that are unsatisfying. Other games offer a much stronger focus on narrative informing the math as a priority.

Ok, I have seen you say this, but I guess I just am not understanding how this, in your opinion, manifest in a difference in play. Does it have nothing to do with actual play for you? That is fine if that is the case (heck I skipped 3e primarily because I didn't like the graphic design of the books). But it seems to me that you are arguing a design principle and the other was arguing about how things actually play.

PS. Sorry to drag you back in - feel free to leave it dead. It is not worth the time and effort to satisfy my curiosity.

 

[dave2008]

I played with this some because there are things about PF2E I do really like. But the system is built with that +level concept baked into the foundation.

Yes, it is very easy to simply apply a -level to everything, canceling out the +level effect. And you will get modifiers and targets. In some ways it really transforms into a bounded accuracy type game with HP, damage boosts and other special powers defining the difference. But it also gets wonky in a lot of little ways. The game is simply built assuming the +level paradigm and removal impacts how it plays. It "functions", but the results are not satisfying. Ultimately, it is easier to adapt ideas from PF2E into other games (3AE is particularly easy) than it is to unring the +level bell in PF2E.

Interestingly the gamemaster's book coming out soon is supposed to have an option to remove +level. That being said, I to prefer to mine PF2e for good ideas to apply to my game.

 

[GlassJaw]

I agree with much of what you’ve said, but, for clarity, you -can- instead choose to take a lower level feat in lieu of a higher.

Well maybe that somewhat proves my point - I can't for the life of me find where it says that.

 

[BryonD]

I guess I've tried to see that but I'm missing it too. I just haven't seen a direct question. However,...

Ok, I have seen you say this, but I guess I just am not understanding how this, in your opinion, manifest in a difference in play. Does it have nothing to do with actual play for you? That is fine if that is the case (heck I skipped 3e primarily because I didn't like the graphic design of the books). But it seems to me that you are arguing a design principle and the other was arguing about how things actually play.

PS. Sorry to drag you back in - feel free to leave it dead. It is not worth the time and effort to satisfy my curiosity.

It's cool. I'd say it has EVERYTHING to do with actual play. But I guess that is a YMMV kinda thing.
As I also said, the game brings the mechanics and the players bring the story. So if the mechanics don't "feel right" then they are not fun. They don't feel right.