Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E's reception?

[Haffrung]

The other thing 4e did that I miss was entirely self-contained monster stats. If PF2 can do these things, its definitely worth a look from me. But if DMs still need to look up feats and spells before running monsters in PF2, thats going to be a hard pass from me. 3e and PF1 just became too burdensome on me, and I abandoned them for 4e and then 5e.

Abandoning 4E's model of showing all monster capabilities in a concise stat block was a big step back for 5E. And sadly, it looks like PF2 eschews that DM-saving innovation too.

90+ per cent of adversaries and NPCs will have no role in the game besides 2-5 rounds of combat. Presenting those adversaries in a tight stat block that captures the things they'll do in 2-5 rounds of combat is a, major selling point of 4E. It really is disappointing designers turned their back on on a clear efficiency win for the sake of tradition, or that fraction of the player-base who just love building PCs and NPCs as a sub-hobby.

 

[JeffB]

Abandoning 4E's model of showing all monster capabilities in a concise stat block was a big step back for 5E. And sadly, it looks like PF2 eschews that DM-saving innovation too.

90+ per cent of adversaries and NPCs will have no role in the game besides 2-5 rounds of combat. Presenting those adversaries in a tight stat block that captures the things they'll do in 2-5 rounds of combat is a, major selling point of 4E. It really is disappointing designers turned their back on on a clear efficiency win for the sake of tradition, or that fraction of the player-base who just love building PCs and NPCs as a sub-hobby.

Backpedaling is a huge turn-off for me with 5E* But monster design/self contained statblocks is one of the biggest offenders. Unfortunately PF2 goes nowhere forward on this either. Keep your 600+ page core rulebook handy


*in general, ALL the backpedaling in 5E is a turn-off from a rules standpoint for me- every step forward they took 2 steps back. I've already got C&C for simplified unified mechanic D&D (and C&C is still much easier to run than 5E)

 

[dave2008]

IMHO, that would have to be a separate normal action, since the PC would be in the air during the ogre's turn and fall to the ground on the ogre's turn as well. Or you could make in a two-action sequence. It would certainly be hilarious.

Wouldn't the club attack just be a reaction where the trigger is a target in mid-air within the Ogre's reach, like @kenada wanted

 

[dave2008]

Abandoning 4E's model of showing all monster capabilities in a concise stat block was a big step back for 5E. And sadly, it looks like PF2 eschews that DM-saving innovation too.

That is not actually true. 4e monsters show all the abilities a monster would typically use in combat. It was never meant to contain everything a monster could do. For instance, monsters get healing surges, but they are not listed in the stat block, there is also all sorts of improvised actions you can easily adjudicate with DMG42, and of course you are free to change weapon armor etc.

Interestingly new 5e statblocks are providing a hybrid for spellcasting creatures by providing game mechanics for their "signature" spell in the action section of their statblock. I would like to see PF2e monster design move this way too.,

 

[BryonD]

Backpedaling is a huge turn-off for me with 5E* But monster design/self contained statblocks is one of the biggest offenders. Unfortunately PF2 goes nowhere forward on this either. Keep your 600+ page core rulebook handy


*in general, ALL the backpedaling in 5E is a turn-off from a rules standpoint for me- every step forward they took 2 steps back. I've already got C&C for simplified unified mechanic D&D (and C&C is still much easier to run than 5E)

I think there is a lot interesting here.
We are both people who play something other than 5E, but for different reasons. But clearly 5E is huge (like mind-bogglingly so) despite us.....

To start with a purely personal opinion statement: I'd remove the word "backpedaling" and replace with "returning to the point where a wrong turn was taken and then moving forward correctly from there."

Obviously we disagree and I can't stress enough how much I respect your opinion and taste for your own game. But if we stop talking about what you or I like and play pretend for a minute that my ability to provide for my family is tied to the sales of D&D, then I'd throw myself at ignoring my own taste and sing the praises of 5E exactly as it is from the highest hilltop. I suspect you would as well if this were a livelihood issue for you. and we can both very happily go about playing our own home games however we want.
But clearly there are a TON of people who really love 5E. So it can be said that you are simply wrong to call it backpedaling. Clearly this starts to get into a hazy area of fact vs. opinion. But by making the changes they made (and ignoring the protests for both you and of me) they have delivered way more fun to way more people than any RPG has ever come close to before. The "delivering the greatest amount of joy to humanity" answer and the full-on capitalism "drive the sales" answer are the exact same. 5E wins.

Bringing it back to PF2E and looking at the past several posts, you can invert this conversation.
Again, without disrespecting that there is clearly a niche for whom PF2E hit the perfect sweet spot, it seems to have done a lot to alienate both sides. It picked up exactly the things from 4E that we intolerable to me, while keeping the things from PF that were intolerable to others.

 

[kenada]

Well legendary actions are really just a type of reaction, the trigger is just really generic: the end of another creatures turn. However, though what you describe is cool, for me the issue is that it is all happening on the boss' turn (it is just using its reaction on its turn). Here are my thoughts:

1. PF2e already gives some monsters the "Multiple Opportunities" which is a version of 5e's "Reactive" trait or "Legendary Actions." I would give some version of this to the boss monster so I can do some things off-turn.

Currently anyway, off-turn actions are a non-goal. I want to see what I can do within the game’s action economy before deciding to break it. The hydra is a special case because it makes thematic sense for it to have multiple reactions. It doesn’t make sense for an arbitrary monster to have more just because I decide it’s a “boss”.

Boss monsters often have phases, often changing part of the way through the fight. Something I did in 4e that I think works here is to have multiple stat blocks, one for each phase of the monster. If you want for Boss to be a 400HP monster you could make it up of two 200HP stat blocks, or 4 100 HP stat blocks and then changes the abilities and changes between its stat block. When stat block 1 is reduced to 100, you replace with stat block #2 and the new powers and traits along with it.

Yeah, but I want to be careful with that. My players (for the most part) don’t like 4e or 5e. It’s also one of the reasons I want to stay within the game’s normal action economy for now (beyond just seeing how far it can be pushed).

IMHO, that would have to be a separate normal action, since the PC would be in the air during the ogre's turn and fall to the ground on the ogre's turn as well. Or you could make in a two-action sequence. It would certainly be hilarious.

Reactions can be used on your turn. The reaction could have the trigger “an enemy creature is off the ground within your reach” with an effect along the lines of “Make a melee Strike against the triggering creature. If you hit, attempt an Athletics check to Shove the target. This attack uses the same multiple attack penalty as your Strike, and doesn’t count toward your multiple attack penalty.” That’s based a fair bit on Knockback Strike, which is a 10th level two-action attack, so I think one would want to tune the ogre’s damage with that in mind.

You can do this easily enough by placing traps, haunts or environmental dangers in specific places on the map, or with specific triggers in a given area. There are a lot of good examples of traps in the PF2 CRB. Another way is to give a boss a spellcasting minion or two whose role is to buff the boss and debuff the PCs.

Yep, this too.

This said, it's beginning to look like a critter that is 2-3 levels above the PCs is already very, very tough without having to pull many shenanigans.

We had a TPK with a 1st level party against a 3rd level gray ooze due to terrible tactics, so yeah. Just being difficult can be done with adding levels. I want to see what I can do to make the encounters more unique.

Actually, both of these posts remind me of the conversion I did of kruthiks to PF2. I used 4e as a base (because the 5e versions are just wimpy). I turned their damage aura into a reaction with the same trigger and tuned their Strike’s damage with that in mind. I also gave the kruthik hivelord a frenzy aura that grants other kruthiks an extra reaction along with a new reaction letting them follow creatures when they move away. I haven’t had a chance to test them yet though, since my players have diligently avoided anything that looks like a kruthik nest.

5e I enjoy for its simplicity, and it is nicely balanced. I can trust my PC's with 5e as well, but I don't feel like the tactical depth is there. Nor do I feel like I can just cut loose with the monsters without a possible TPK. The other thing 4e did that I miss was entirely self-contained monster stats. If PF2 can do these things, its definitely worth a look from me. But if DMs still need to look up feats and spells before running monsters in PF2, thats going to be a hard pass from me. 3e and PF1 just became too burdensome on me, and I abandoned them for 4e and then 5e. I just don't want to deal with that. 5e I at least tolerate that aspect of it because the game is otherwise so simple and using D&D Beyond helps.

Monsters don’t have feats in PF2, but spellcasters only have spell lists in their stat blocks.

 

[dave2008]

Currently anyway, off-turn actions are a non-goal. I want to see what I can do within the game’s action economy before deciding to break it. The hydra is a special case because it makes thematic sense for it to have multiple reactions. It doesn’t make sense for an arbitrary monster to have more just because I decide it’s a “boss”.

The hydra isn't the only monster. There is at least one other monster with that trait, and several monsters "play" with the action economy. For example: the red dragon can bite as OA and redirect fire as a reaction. It call also make three attacks with its 2 action "Draconic Fury."

I would also argue "boss" monsters are not some arbitrary monster. I mean, you specifically asked about making it an MMO style boss monster. That is not some arbitrary monster.

However, I guess when it comes down to it, I am less worried about "breaking" the action economy and more worries about making it an interesting combat. However, I do think it is an interesting exercise to see how far you can stretch it. Maybe I am less creative than you, but limiting myself to the 3-action economy for a boss monster doesn't seem like the way to go.

Yeah, but I want to be careful with that. My players (for the most part) don’t like 4e or 5e. It’s also one of the reasons I want to stay within the game’s normal action economy for now (beyond just seeing how far it can be pushed).

You realize that wasn't how monsters were/are made in 4e or 5e. I have seen that style of monster hombrewed for 4e and 5e, but it was never part of an official design. The concept is edition neutral, you could do the same thing in 1e, 2e, 3e, PF1, and PF2. So I don't really understand you comment on that concept.

Monsters don’t have feats in PF2, but spellcasters only have spell lists in their stat blocks.

You can give monsters feats if you want.

 

[JeffB]

I think there is a lot interesting here.
We are both people who play something other than 5E, but for different reasons. But clearly 5E is huge (like mind-bogglingly so) despite us.....

To start with a purely personal opinion statement: I'd remove the word "backpedaling" and replace with "returning to the point where a wrong turn was taken and then moving forward correctly from there."

Obviously we disagree and I can't stress enough how much I respect your opinion and taste for your own game. But if we stop talking about what you or I like and play pretend for a minute that my ability to provide for my family is tied to the sales of D&D, then I'd throw myself at ignoring my own taste and sing the praises of 5E exactly as it is from the highest hilltop. I suspect you would as well if this were a livelihood issue for you. and we can both very happily go about playing our own home games however we want.
But clearly there are a TON of people who really love 5E. So it can be said that you are simply wrong to call it backpedaling. Clearly this starts to get into a hazy area of fact vs. opinion. But by making the changes they made (and ignoring the protests for both you and of me) they have delivered way more fun to way more people than any RPG has ever come close to before. The "delivering the greatest amount of joy to humanity" answer and the full-on capitalism "drive the sales" answer are the exact same. 5E wins.

Absolutely I can agree with what you are saying- I tend to post in two manners- The rational business perspective side, and then the Fan side. The two often are at odds with each other, and I can seem contradictory. To address your post-

From the Fan side- First and foremost I'm aware I am no longer their target audience, and it makes me a bit sad because I was there at almost the very beginning- but I don't lose any sleep over gaming either. When I am speaking about backpedaling, what I'm getting at is the natural progression of the game. 4E brought in many new ways of doing things. 5E having reversed many of 4E's "steps forward" seems like the natural progression from 3rd edition, not 4th. In the 13th Age core book, they describe 3E in a nutshell, its good points, its bad points and how 13A takes that forward. The next paragraph is the same, only talking about 4E- good, bad, what 13A does in taking it forward. This is where I had hoped and wanted 5E to go- forward. Instead 5E threw out the 4E baby with the bathwater because it had been such a cluster-F. So in many ways 5E went back to tweaked systems that are 40+ years old now. As a fan, as someone who has been through EVERY edition -I was/am very excited by 4E. It was new, fresh. I like and prefer that in a new edition rather than re-treading the same ground. In addition- 5e also treads a lot of the same ground that C&C did, albeit the Trolls brought that out 15 years ago. I also play and own lots of other games. So very little of 5E is fresh or new to me. As a fan- 5E leaves me cold. I continue to voice my opinion about 5E as a fan, whether it's rational or not because I am an opinionated SOB . I hope that one day the property will go back to it's roots after WOTC has milked it for all it's business worth , and is sold to some smaller more personal/passionate company.(Though I quite likely will be too old to care/know when that day comes)

Now scratch all that impassioned FAN BS above

From the rational non-fan business perspective-I am a lover of and firm believer in Capitalism. 5E is firing on all cylinders. I have said as much elsewhere, and I don't blame them one bit for doing things the way they are doing from that business perspective. They are catering to their biggest audience and experiencing growth in new ways and continuing in a business model that has proven very successful. They would be stupid to do it any other way. I have said before too, that I believe 5E is the best version of D&D that WOTC has put out (not my favorite- but the best). If someone said, sit down with any version of Core D&D and play straight outta the box without tweaking- BY FAR I'd play 5E because it's a tight solid game system. I enjoy running 5E, despite my passionate Fan cries for things that cater to me.

Bringing it back to PF2E and looking at the past several posts, you can invert this conversation.
Again, without disrespecting that there is clearly a niche for whom PF2E hit the perfect sweet spot, it seems to have done a lot to alienate both sides. It picked up exactly the things from 4E that we intolerable to me, while keeping the things from PF that were intolerable to others.

I just don't know enough about the PF2 play experience. I have not run it. It seems there are things that superficially 4E-ish or took a 4E-ism to the next logical conclusion. I can see however that it's too cumbersome for my personal style to run on any long term basis. I don't really have the desire in my old age to delve deep into a complicated system/rulebook to figure it out- any complicated system. If they brought out a BB, I'd be all over that and give it a go. Or if could find a decent one-shot.

 

[dave2008]

...I believe 5E is the best version of D&D that WOTC has put out (not my favorite- but the best).

That is a very enlightened perspective. I mostly agree with it, but honestly, when we play I don't see much difference between 1e, 4e, or 5e. I guess the system matters much less to my group than the group itself.

 

[dave2008]

I don't really have the desire in my old age to delve deep into a complicated system/rulebook to figure it out- any complicated system.

I feel ya, I'm the same way. I can't see myself running a PF2e game, but I am interested in playing in a casual game.