Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Actual AP Play Experience
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 7989302" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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" <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite1" alt=":)" title="Smile :)" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":)" /></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 7989302, member: 12731"] 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" :) [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
Actual AP Play Experience
Top