I don’t think it’s too bad. Our combats are usually about the same length as other games, but there’s more movement, so it feels less static and boring. Creatures also generally have interesting abilities, which helps too.Actually, I'm only interested in one issue.
The pace of fighting: is it like in PF 1e or rather D&D 5e? The shorter the better.
I think it's because that's the way monsters are calibrated - they get access to all the same abilities and bonuses available to PCs, in contrast to 5E where monsters are frequently helpless against the goodies the PHB generously hands out to PCs.Since it was mentioned upthread, I’ll agree combat definitely feels more lethal than PF1.
Actually, I'm only interested in one issue.
The pace of fighting: is it like in PF 1e or rather D&D 5e? The shorter the better.
I’ll agree combat definitely feels more lethal than PF1. That’s probably due in part to the 4-degrees of success system where crits happen much more frequently. Combat is much more swingy, but that’s mitigated by hero points and the dying rules.
Like I said, it’s the crits. They’re much more common in PF2 than they were in PF1, and they do comparatively more damage. That’s also what makes higher level creatures so dangerous — they naturally crit lower level characters more often (due to their greater attack bonus versus the PCs’ ACs).Really? I'm quite surprised to hear that given how the new iteration of Pathfinder has effectively removed save or die, and even the more punishing save or suck effects, from the game.

(Dungeons & Dragons)
Rulebook featuring "high magic" options, including a host of new spells.