• Resources are back! Use the menu in the main navbar. If you own a resource, please check it for formatting, icons, etc.

PF2 Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

CapnZapp

Adventurer
why, WotC, why not HD...?
Because the devs made the assumption that HD was a poor gauge on the monster's "level". They likely thought of 3E upsized monsters like beasts and zombies that had loads of hit dice, yet presented a relatively modest challenge. IIRC you could have twenty or thirty hit dice and still only be an appropriate challenge for a level 10 party...

Maybe Dave2008 has concluded this... caution... wasn't necessary in practice, but that only means the difference is slight enough to not matter.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
..., at least aim for the more "simulationist (or closer to running on same physics engine)" game. Well, that's my personal principle, so...
I don't know. I am reviewing the PF2e Bestiary in another thread (one monster at time), and I just did Apes this morning. The Megaprimatus is an ape bigger than King Kong and it does 2d8 +10 bludgeoning damage with its fist. This is a creature that would weigh over 60,000lbs and should be over 300x as strong as the average person and it averages 19 damage on a hit?! That's not enough to kill a 2nd level fighter. I don't know what that is simulating. That being said, I have a similar issue (though not as drastic) with some of the larger 5e monsters too (dragons are a big offender there).
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Maybe Dave2008 has concluded this... caution... wasn't necessary in practice, but that only means the difference is slight enough to not matter.
To clarify, I still use CR to determine approx. challenge. I use the HD to determine prof. only. It makes the most sense with 5e monsters because they get a different size die based on monster size, so the number of HD should/could be relative to its experience / level. I basically use HD to give me the prof. bonus and then calculate CR normally. That being said, I only do that in my home game, not for anything I present on these forums or UA reddit.

For example: The pit fiend has 24HD and is CR 20. The hit die provide a +7 prof. bonus instead of the +6 bonus from the CR table. However, if you plug a +7 prof. bonus in to the CR calculator it, at most, adjust the CR by .25. So, it is essentially the same CR. So it is still CR 20.
 

Lucas Yew

Explorer
I don't know. I am reviewing the PF2e Bestiary in another thread (one monster at time), and I just did Apes this morning. The Megaprimatus is an ape bigger than King Kong and it does 2d8 +10 bludgeoning damage with its fist. This is a creature that would weigh over 60,000lbs and should be over 300x as strong as the average person and it averages 19 damage on a hit?! That's not enough to kill a 2nd level fighter. I don't know what that is simulating. That being said, I have a similar issue (though not as drastic) with some of the larger 5e monsters too (dragons are a big offender there).
Ah, on that case, my definition of "simulationism" might be different somewhat from yours.

For example, as long as the basic math rules function and scale the same for everyone who is a piece in the board, it clearly counts as my definition of sim, even if it has problems like the muscle mass issue you mentioned.
Of course, if they actually tried to regulate muscle mass per Strength score like GURPS, it's a lovely simulationist bonus for me...

By contrast, having two different scales, such as 4E's players (and for some reason a limited number of NPCs) adding only half level to everything while monsters (also for some reason the former NPC(s) go under some plot induced silly fever mode and legally(snort) swap stat blocks) adding full level to the same checks, or 5E's "circular (good description, by the way) CR/Proficiency assignment problem", is anti-simulation in my (apparent) definition.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
Ah, on that case, my definition of "simulationism" might be different somewhat from yours.

For example, as long as the basic math rules function and scale the same for everyone who is a piece in the board, it clearly counts as my definition of sim, even if it has problems like the muscle mass issue you mentioned.
Different ways of thinking I guess. I'm not a huge simulationist, but I care less about how something is made and more about the result. To me if the rules say a 40' ape should do 19 damage, even if they are the same rules for PCS, then I have an issue the "scale" of the rules.

Of course we always house rule armor w/ DR and actual meat/wound points too - so maybe I'm more of a simulationist than I thought!
 

dave2008

Adventurer
For example, as long as the basic math rules function and scale the same for everyone who is a piece in the board, it clearly counts as my definition of sim, even if it has problems like the muscle mass issue you mentioned.
Is that really just consistency and not simulation. IMO, rules for a 40' ape should not be the same for 6' human
 

doctorhook

Adventurer
Didn’t play PF1 (too similar to 3.5, which was more fun to talk about than play), but I’m interested in PF2. I like 5E a lot, I think it’s a good base, but I think it’s undersupported and lacks the depth of crunch that I crave. Maybe PF2 can offer some cool bits to poach for 5E.
 

MockingBird

Explorer
Couldn't one just make their NPCs as of they were making a character even if the rules are more simplified? Just seems like a nonissue unless I'm missing something. I know some folks need rules for everything.
 

doctorhook

Adventurer
I get that it might lack the depth you want, but how can you possibly say it is undersupported?
If you lived through any previous editions (3e and 4e especially, or PF1) then you came to get used to a certain amount of new content. 5E’s been on shelves for five years, and there is still a serious dearth of new spells, magic items, feats, and class options, especially if you don’t count playtest (UA) or unofficial (DMG) material. The situation has been improving, but there is definitely a lack of official support compared to the past, and that’s disappointing.
 

MockingBird

Explorer
If you lived through any previous editions (3e and 4e especially, or PF1) then you came to get used to a certain amount of new content. 5E’s been on shelves for five years, and there is still a serious dearth of new spells, magic items, feats, and class options, especially if you don’t count playtest (UA) or unofficial (DMG) material. The situation has been improving, but there is definitely a lack of official support compared to the past, and that’s disappointing.
I think this is more of a positive rather than a negative. Too much bloat can and will be a bad thing.
 

CapnZapp

Adventurer
Couldn't one just make their NPCs as of they were making a character even if the rules are more simplified? Just seems like a nonissue unless I'm missing something. I know some folks need rules for everything.
Yes, of course you can ignore any and all monster building guidelines and just create a PC that happens to be under the DM's control.

This is true in every edition.

The issue here is that a segment of the customer base wants and needs this to be the ONLY way of creating NPCs.

In today's market, that is unacceptable to me. (And most of you, I wager)

I love the 5E way - of doing things on my side of the table (I'm the DM).

However I can understand the players wanting more crunch on their side. But that's another issue.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
If you lived through any previous editions (3e and 4e especially, or PF1) then you came to get used to a certain amount of new content. 5E’s been on shelves for five years, and there is still a serious dearth of new spells, magic items, feats, and class options, especially if you don’t count playtest (UA) or unofficial (DMG) material. The situation has been improving, but there is definitely a lack of official support compared to the past, and that’s disappointing.
I lived through 1e, 2e, 3e, & 4e. Official support, that is your issue. OK. Listen, the official support is more than enough for me, but I get were your coming from if that is your line.

However, there is a just ton of 3PP support: there are at least a dozen different settings available, at least 2 large bestiaries (and many more really), and more classes, spells, magic items, maneuvers, etc. than I can even begin to document. I don't have any issue find any amount of content I may want for whatever style of game I want to play.
 

doctorhook

Adventurer
I think this is more of a positive rather than a negative. Too much bloat can and will be a bad thing.
Oh and I can totally agree with that. PF1 absolutely crossed that line, and the others probably did too (to a lesser extent). I think 5E swing the pendulum too far the other way, to the extent that it seemed like Hasbro was trying to starve this game (and certainly they had WotC on a very short leash at the beginning of 5E). I’d still like a lot more support than 5E is currently getting.
 

Markh3rd

Explorer
Oh and I can totally agree with that. PF1 absolutely crossed that line, and the others probably did too (to a lesser extent). I think 5E swing the pendulum too far the other way, to the extent that it seemed like Hasbro was trying to starve this game (and certainly they had WotC on a very short leash at the beginning of 5E). I’d still like a lot more support than 5E is currently getting.
Honestly I don't mind the pace. It gives me plenty of time to try out what is offered now and be very familiar with what is established by the time they introduce something new. PF1 was so fast that I couldn't keep up with it and as a DM that's a bad feeling.

Even as a player I began to have so many options in PF1 that it took lots of time trying to read everything that I could obtain when I leveled up. Overall I feel a slow release schedule is healthier long term, as long as the adventures are coming out on a regular basis. Which WOTC has been good about.

And as the other poster said you can always find 3PP to supplement your game if you don't care about everything being official for your homebrew game. I have several of those products as well.
 

dave2008

Adventurer
I’d still like a lot more support than 5E is currently getting.
I get that people feel this way. But to be honest I just can't fathom needing more content. I have two groups and we have been playing 5e since about a month after it released (transitioned our 4e games) and we have only gone through about 25% of the race and class options. As the DM, I love all of the official and 3pp content because I like to tinker, but my players will never use everything that is already "officially" available.
 

Advertisement

Top