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

[CapnZapp]

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

Of course it does!

That said, get back to us once you've spent an hour crafting a high-level spellcasting NPC only to see it die before it could act even once... and we'll see if your equally-valid opinion remains unmodified by the experience...!

 

[dave2008]

..., 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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

 

[dave2008]

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.

I get that it might lack the depth you want, but how can you possibly say it is undersupported?

 

[cmad1977]

In answer ton the OP:

Not a chance.