Hah, good point!Absolutely. Here, let me quote myself!
Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience
dave2008
Legend
Well, everything I hear about PF2e monsters being tough is primarily from the +level design and crit design. You discussed how the AP stays within the range of -2 to +2, how a +3 can be deadly and they don't even have recommendations for below -4 or above +4. That provides a very narrow range of monsters that can be used without either being trivial or a TPK. Adding +level and Crits on +10 makes monsters get tougher very fast. That is just not my preference. I prefer a wide range of monsters that I can engage with and not have to worry about taking a PC down in one round (unless I want to).Please elaborate
Now, I know you have said that PF2e monsters have tricks to thwart PC shenanigans, but I have neither seen it, because I haven't played yet (and my players are not the type), nor has that been an issue in my 5e games (see previous comment about my players).
CapnZapp
Legend
Maybe something got lost underways. What I was talking about was that how monsters in 5E (too) often came across as hopelessly outclassed. That is, a monster might have a fearsome melee bite attack. But if the players can reliably deny it the opportunity to make that attack (more than maybe once in the combat), it ultimately doesn't matter.
In 5E I got the definite impression the player characters held all the cards (except for a small number of monsters that are both fearsome and versatile): speed, battlefield control, movement modes, buffs, debuffs, visibility, and so on.
The difference to PF2 couldn't be greater. PF2 monsters are routinely given special attacks that mess with the characters (debuffs from poison is perhaps the best example: almost nonexistant in 5E, frighteningly common in PF2), and Paizo isn't actively afraid (the way WotC was, at least in the MM) to deck monsters out with useful spells and abilities that let it actually deliver its attacks.
Just one example: if a 5E monster gets a teleport, phase or gate ability, it must use it instead of something useful (such as causing damage). In absolute contrast to this, PF2 often recognizes how this makes it problematic for the monster to show any real teeth, and so instead hands out special abilities such as "you can phase in for free at the start of an encounter", ensuring the monster has all its attacks remaining after suddenly appearing exactly where the PCs don't want it!
But you're right, much about the monster monstrousness stem from the core gameplay: the way the game encourages melee combat over kiting strategies, and the impact of level on overall effectiveness (and crits in particular). While at least some of the 5E monsters' problems stem from core gameplay issues, such as overly generous ranged combat and speed options for PCs.
I know you like to use this to avoid having to give Paizo credit for their monster design. As I've said before, I don't see the distiction as very useful, and I don't have an issue with just saying "Paizo does much better monsters in PF2 than WotC did monsters in 5E"
dave2008
Legend
I don't want to avoid giving Paizo credit, but I get your point. I just haven't had a chance to experience it yet. The better design you speak of isn't apparent to me from reading the book (Bestiary), it has to be experienced I gather. I simple don't have enough understanding of the overall system to give them the credit they are do. You pointed that out pretty quickly when I tried to review the Bestiary. I agreed and decided I couldn't really do that review justice until I had played the system...which killed that thread because I haven't had a chance to do that.I know you like to use this to avoid having to give Paizo credit for their monster design. As I've said before, I don't see the distiction as very useful, and I don't have an issue with just saying "Paizo does much better monsters in PF2 than WotC did monsters in 5E"
And of course, dragons. It is always about the dragons.
EDIT: I also want to be clear, I am bit jealous of the deadly monsters actually.
dave2008
Legend
Yes, that is what i was talking about when I said PC shenanigans. My experience with 5e is very different from yours and I haven't experienced my players having any undue methods to stop the monsters.
I gather from your reports that PF2e has a more closely gated, strong math & balance, play experience and doesn't allow for the wide divergence in play styles you see in 5e.
You do have a wide array of monsters to challenge a PCs. You do have to comply with the tight math. But you can make anything within that math range and challenge the PCs. That's the nice thing about PF2: the math works unlike other editions of D&D and PF where the math really did not work. Even my experience with 5E after all the talk of monsters being tough, they weren't. PCs had plenty of spells and abilities to counter them, especially if you use optional rules like feats and multiclassing.
So far in PF2 if you design some orc enemies within that + or -2 range, they both feel like real creatures and are challenging. It's pretty surprising. After playing this game for decades with min-maxers, this has been an incredible surprise. My players are working very hard to trivialize this game and haven't been able to do it. They are literally combing over books to min-max, multiclassing, looking up magic items, and doing everything they can to break the math of the game as they've done with every edition I've played including 5E with astounding success to the point they trivialized 5E within months.
But not PF2. They are still getting their butts kicked at lvl 11. The bard died. Every other character went down except the champion and invisible cleric one or more times. The ranger's pet died. And they can't get these things back easily or quickly in PF2. This was in a fight against a CR+2 lich and his stone giant guards. I didn't even need to modify the creatures at all.
Color me surprised after playing this game going on four decades. If you check my past posts, min-maxing players has always been a huge problem in my group. I've had to take some extreme measures to challenge them heavily modifying every version of D&D to challenge them. This is the first time I haven't had to do that. I keep waiting for the game to suddenly become trivial as my players figure out the perfect min-max combo. It hasn't happened by lvl 11. If it doesn't happen by lvl 20, then likely it can't be done. We shall see.
dave2008
Legend
I've never played with optimizers, so that has never been my experience. I know it is a thing, it has just never been my experience and I can't personally understand the desire.
However, I do have a question for you: do your players like it? I guess this goes for @CapnZapp too as he has mentioned his players are similar. I ask because I posed this question a few years ago on these forums and I didn't get a definitive answer. I basically proposed a version of D&D very close to what PF2e has delivered. A lot of options and customization, but no real way to min-max / optimize. I thought of it a bit like the holy grail of D&D; however, I got the impression that the min-max type would not like it Of course they had never experienced it either, so I was wondering if your players are frustrated they can't game the system? For some at least, it appeared that is what they enjoy.
Maybe it is the min-max thing, but I have never had an issue with kicking my players butts. The "easy" monsters in the 5e MM are tough enough for my old group. Which made me sad as I had all of these custom monsters I couldn't use because they were to strong,
I see. It did seem harder at lower level. We have a cleric with master medicine skill built for healing. He can get the party up fairly quick. He also memorizes at few heal spells to supplement his font. We're getting beam heals for 6d10+48, which pushes people up quickly. He can do the higher level treat wounds and combat medicine.
Wizard's are a low value class. You know the old PF1 tier system where wizards were number one with a bullet? Now they are the low guy on that list with Bards the number one caster in the game now. Bards not only have access to the most effective 1 action cantrips in the game, their spell list is also extremely versatile and dangerous. The bard used phanstasmal calamity on a group of mixed level 7 and 10 minions and hammered them hard all while singing inspire courage to increase martial effectiveness.
Bard and cleric are the most useful casters. Wizard is on the bottom, though can still be built to be useful, just not as useful. Still learning about the druid and sorcerer. Kind of a strange shift in power. But at least the gap in power isn't as wide as it was when the wizard was number one. It's more like wizard is on the bottom, but the range is very tight. I still think a wizard who heavily specializes in a particular thing like charming/dominating or blasting will turn out to be more effective than the old PF1 wide ranging generalist.
For myself? Because it took a lot of time to build PF1 encounters to make them harder. It took a lot of time in other D&D systems. In nearly every system of D&D, casters made encounters incredibly easy as the levels got higher. They trivialized so much with pre-buffing and wide ranging powerful spell selection, that you had to plan for this every encounter. And player damage far exceeded monster hit points. Healing also exceeded the monsters ability to deal damage. So you had to put a lot of work in planning around a variety of variables that were hard to account for.
Whereas toning down a PF2 encounter might be removing a monster, making a monster not want to land a hit through a Champion reaction, role-playing a situation out, delaying a monster a few rounds, or what not. I don't have to spend countless time account for a huge number of variables to make an encounter. Casters don't have near the ability to pre-buff or trivialize an encounter like they used to. The best tactic my cleric has found right now is to turn invisible since far fewer creatures can detect it while he heals and buffs. Even that keeps them alive because if the cleric were visible, he would likely get put in the ground quickly and the party might fall from that.
To sum it up, it takes far less work to make encounters easier than it took for me to make encounters harder in past editions. It's pretty surprising.
However, I do have a question for you: do your players like it? I guess this goes for @CapnZapp too as he has mentioned his players are similar. I ask because I posed this question a few years ago on these forums and I didn't get a definitive answer. I basically proposed a version of D&D very close to what PF2e has delivered. A lot of options and customization, but no real way to min-max / optimize. I thought of it a bit like the holy grail of D&D; however, I got the impression that the min-max type would not like it Of course they had never experienced it either, so I was wondering if your players are frustrated they can't game the system? For some at least, it appeared that is what they enjoy.
Maybe it is the min-max thing, but I have never had an issue with kicking my players butts. The "easy" monsters in the 5e MM are tough enough for my old group. Which made me sad as I had all of these custom monsters I couldn't use because they were to strong,
Yes, my players like it. It took them a bit to get used to, but after learning it they like it a lot. We're fully on board. What sold them on PF2 versus 5E:
1. Main thing was player options. They had fun making characters again. 5E had very limited character creation options and being able to build an interesting character mechanically is very important to them.
2. There was stuff to look forward to and buy. No real meaningful character options were released by 5E for over a year. My friends would make fun of how there were no options and nothing to spend their money on. The fact they have a game that is releasing material for additional character options was a huge selling point.
From a DM standpoint for me I was sold on the following:
1. 3 action system is far better for story-telling and interesting fights than the move and action system. Surprised it wasn't done earlier.
2. Challenges are not only mechanically interesting, but they are built in a way that makes them both believable mechanically and realistically. They are very organically built and feel like something real including the methods for dealing with them.
Read a monster like the Grikkitog. It's a very interesting monster that seems like it is very real. I haven't seen monsters built in such an interesting way in the history of D&D. This is all enabled by the 3 action system.
