Pathfinder 2E Are you moving from 5E to PF2?

[dave2008]

1. Combat in 5e tends to be a bit dull.

Not an issue we have had in 5e (of course I don't remember them being dull in 13, or 4e either).

2. Official PDFs exist for PF2 products - this makes it far easier to run for me.

It would make me change, but they are nice to have. Now if I only had time to finish my review of the PF2e bestiary!

 

[Lucas Yew]

Interestingly. The increase by level would be the easiest thing to port over to 5e. You would lose bounded accuracy against extremely low or high levels enemies. But it would overall work pretty well

If so, which value of the two, HD or CR, will work as the metric for non-playable creatures' Proficiency bonus? In PF2, it's HD=Level for everyone. In 5E, it's HD for players and CR for non-players.

This disparity is probably the biggest reason why I decided I prefer PF2 despite its flaws; if both of the newest D&D derivatives decided that NPC rules are (or can be) separate from PCs (which on its own is a big shame, in my opinion), at least aim for the more "simulationist (or closer to running on same physics engine)" game. Well, that's my personal principle, so...

 

[Haffrung]

This disparity is probably the biggest reason why I decided I prefer PF2 despite its flaws; if both of the newest D&D derivatives decided that NPC rules are (or can be) separate from PCs (which on its own is a big shame, in my opinion), at least aim for the more "simulationist (or closer to running on same physics engine)" game. Well, that's my personal principle, so...

Honest question: Do you like making up NPCs? Is spending significant periods of time between sessions crafting NPCs with all the care you take in creating a PC part of the fun of being a GM for you? To the extent that you enjoy it for its own sake, rather than the effect it will have on the game at the table?

Because in my experience as a GM, the effect of an NPC on the game is two things: dialogue (which doesn't require mechanics); and combat, where an NPC typically lives for 3-4 rounds. That being the case, I find the great majority of the 'full PC' stats and mechanics generated for an NPC to have no use.

So I'm curious why some people (and you're not the only one) seem to be disappointed in the idea that NPCs have truncated stats in 5E and PF2. How does that impact the game at the table for you?

 

[Markh3rd]

Ya, we had an epic 5-6 hour battle in 4e (30th level players vs my heavily revised Tiamat) and no one complained. It was on of the best battles I have ever experienced.

Our epic level 13 adventure in PFS at a convention went from 10AM to 3AM the next morning. I learned what slow high level play and analysis paralysis truly meant that day. I'm hoping not to repeat that experience anytime soon. And though any system can slow down at high levels of play, our 5E adventures at 17th level haven't come close to that previous experience.

 

[CapnZapp]

Honest question: Do you like making up NPCs? Is spending significant periods of time between sessions crafting NPCs with all the care you take in creating a PC part of the fun of being a GM for you? To the extent that you enjoy it for its own sake, rather than the effect it will have on the game at the table?

Because in my experience as a GM, the effect of an NPC on the game is two things: dialogue (which doesn't require mechanics); and combat, where an NPC typically lives for 3-4 rounds. That being the case, I find the great majority of the 'full PC' stats and mechanics generated for an NPC to have no use.

So I'm curious why some people (and you're not the only one) seem to be disappointed in the idea that NPCs have truncated stats in 5E and PF2. How does that impact the game at the table for you?

This.

The idea that DMs are required to use the full player character generation rules for their NPCs is dead.

Thankfully!

 

[Lucas Yew]

Honest question(s)

For the first three questions: Yes, to all three, with passion.

Now, the answer to the fourth and final one is quite longer. Why I feel disappointed in the "truncation" of NPC stats is, because it wrecks my feeling of verisimilitude in-universe severely; no wonder if I add that my personal favorite (hypothetical) RPG rule is GURPS (with equally divided DX and IQ, plus legally free as with OGL or CC, but that's another story).
The personal preferrence of every in-game entity running on the same principles (especially with no Heal-Damage Asymmetry, like Pokèmon, for a JRPG reference, in contrast to Final Fantasy and many others) violated.
Every time I see a fantasy heartbreaker rule showcase such an incident, something inside me I can feel dying rapidly and viciously.
It is deeply unsatisfying, really; maybe some kind of depression, but hopefully not (my Will save is surprisingly high for someone with such a personal history).

However, I do understand well that for Gamemasters, simplified statistics (and H-DA by extension) are a million times easier to actually run, particularly if their screentime is destined to be short.
So it's my compromise that while I may complain about its existence now and then, I won't try to police against such style of prep and play as hard as I can.
Well, if I ever get to GM someday (I only have player experience, since I'm not sure if I have the responsibility or social skills to manage the job seriously, plus without RL spare time), I will revel in preparing elaborately statted up sandboxy worlds, even whilst knowing that it may drain my energy mercilessly, because that is the primary reason why I decided to invest time and love for this hobby.

 

[dave2008]

If so, which value of the two, HD or CR, will work as the metric for non-playable creatures' Proficiency bonus? In PF2, it's HD=Level for everyone. In 5E, it's HD for players and CR for non-players.

FYI, that is not entirely true. In 5e prof bonus doesn't have to be tied to CR. That table in the DMG is just a short cut to help make monsters & NPCs quicky and determine (roughly) their CR. It is allowed to make them just like PCs (I assume this is true in PF2e, but I could be wrong). In fact, I've switched to using HD for prof. bonus for my home game. It is also handy that it can be used to throw off PCs you like to rummage through the MM when they shouldn't That being said, it changes very few of the monsters. They are pretty much already figured with HD for prof. bonus.

 

[dave2008]

Well, if I ever get to GM someday (I only have player experience, since I'm not sure if I have the responsibility or social skills to manage the job seriously, plus without RL spare time), I will revel in preparing elaborately statted up sandboxy worlds, even whilst knowing that it may drain my energy mercilessly, because that is the primary reason why I decided to invest time and love for this hobby.

Wait, you don't DM and it bothers you?! You do realize the monsters are played with the same rules, even if a shorthand is used to make them?

 

[Lucas Yew]

(...) In fact, I've switched to using HD for prof. bonus for my home game. (...)

That's good, I actually once planned to do the exact same thing.
...With the caveat that while the number of SRD-compatible monsters with "wrong" Proficiency are staggering alone, there is also Spells and Class Features that deal with that detestable floating value known as CR (such as the summoning spells and Turn Undead); why, WotC, why not HD...?
And that one major issue made me decide to give up on staying with 5E despite its immense ease with playing (plus my totally satisfying/memorable first long-term campaign experience, to boot) and bide my time for now, if I'm remembering correctly...

Wait, you don't DM and it bothers you?! You do realize the monsters are played with the same rules, even if a shorthand is used to make them?

I do want to GM someday, so my opinion counts, no?
And yeah, I know non-playables do play generally by the same rules, unlike 4E (whence all monsters since MM3 always struck AC with a Level+5 bonus, struck the "save" defenses with a Level+3 bonus, regardless of their Ability bonuses... Ugh... And don't even mention their skills or "exchanging stat blocks").
At least now there are official Rarity rules for legally justifying NPC exclusive flashy action choices / spells, and now that's quite acceptable.
And NO Health-Damage Asymmetry (casually observed in Starfinder and 4E) is always rated from good to perfect in my book.

 

[dave2008]

That's good, I actually once planned to do the exact same thing.
...With the caveat that while the number of SRD-compatible monsters with "wrong" Proficiency are staggering alone, there is also Spells and Class Features that deal with that detestable floating value known as CR (such as the summoning spells and Turn Undead); why, WotC, why not HD...?

I agree, they should have just stuck the prof. bonus to HD. That would also prevent the DMG monster buiding guidelines form being circular which can be confusing. However,...

Prof. / HD / CR are different things. If you use HD for the prof. bonus you will notice that it doesn't change the CR of 90% - 95% of the monsters. So they are good to go (that is what I meant in the previous email - sorry I didn't explain that). You do need to adjust the attack numbers, but IMO that is easy. So my point is, the spells can use CR and it still works. It actually makes sense as CR is supposed to measure combat effectiveness but prof. just measures accuracy (generally). I wish it was executed better, but, IMO, it is actually better than basing it off HD / level has combat effectiveness can vary across various creatures HD/ level. Indeed, once you factor in different HD die for monster size it really begins to makes sense (I actually wish all PCs got d8 for HD and then class gave a flat bonus to HP) forma simulation standpoint.

I do want to GM someday, so my opinion counts, no?

No it matters, I've just never seen a player complain about this before. There are definitely things, as a DM, that bother more from a simulation perspective in any version of D&D/PF than HD/CR/Prof. bonus, but everyone is different.