Pathfinder 2E How is Pathfinder doing?

Staffan

Legend
That level-up math forcing to stuff XP into certain page counts to get to X Level by Y Page is a terrible disservice to the game. If you're running an AP, you should just use Milestone XP, have more meaningful encounters.
Agreed. But since the APs are the "store windows" of the system so to speak, they have to do it the official way.

Both AOA and Extinction Curse also front-loads the levels, so you have parts 1 and 2 be 4-level parts. Since the initial part also likey has some setup to do, that leaves even fewer pages, so stronger/tighter encounters it is.

In Strength of Thousands, I believe they have more encounters that are solvable via roleplaying, and a greater proportion of story XP. That leaves more room to breathe. In addition, I think the 4-level parts are pushed toward the middle, again giving more room in the early part.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

JmanTheDM

Explorer
5e players absolutely should be PF2's target audience. They should make every effort to sell themselves as the AD&D to WotC's 5e basic D&D.

a silly aside.
in like 44pt font at the back of the CRB, right at the top says:

"Advance your Game"

a bit of a play, easily missed, but absolutely a subtle "this right here is your AD&D to 5e's B/X" without, you know, any risk of lawyers writing letters.

:)

cheers,

J.
 

Retreater

Legend
Honestly, D&D style experience is kind of archaic these days anyway. Even games that still use experience rather than Milestones don't usually go that route.
Yeah. I prefer the Free League style of asking questions of the player ("Did you do x? get an XP point.") and then spending those XP points for immediate upgrades. Or Call of Cthulhu - check the skills you used and then fail a check with them to show you can improve.
Anything but meaningless minute numbers that range in the thousands.
Agreed. But since the APs are the "store windows" of the system so to speak, they have to do it the official way.
They could've, you know, just created a levelling method for their new system that reflects the way people play their games (and other contemporary games).
Or leaned into it more in the APs as an "official AP Leveling System." The Milestones are already there in the books - they just don't have to stuff their APs with a bunch of meaningless encounters when the combats are so darned difficult for the party.
Or - if they're set on using traditional XP systems - provide plenty of options for story XP and other options.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
Yeah. I prefer the Free League style of asking questions of the player ("Did you do x? get an XP point.") and then spending those XP points for immediate upgrades. Or Call of Cthulhu - check the skills you used and then fail a check with them to show you can improve.
Anything but meaningless minute numbers that range in the thousands.

I came up too much with games that still used experience--because it often translated directly into improvement costs--but they didn't care much about how many things you fought or how tough they were, just on how well you succeeded at what you were doing (they also often had baked in some social engineering stuff I'm not a fan of these days, but that's neither here nor there).

They could've, you know, just created a levelling method for their new system that reflects the way people play their games (and other contemporary games).
Or leaned into it more in the APs as an "official AP Leveling System." The Milestones are already there in the books - they just don't have to stuff their APs with a bunch of meaningless encounters when the combats are so darned difficult for the party.
Or - if they're set on using traditional XP systems - provide plenty of options for story XP and other options.

I suspect the latter would have gone over better with parts of the fanbase than the former. Some people are really hostile to Milestone advancement.
 

Warpiglet-7

Cry havoc! And let slip the pigs of war!
I came up too much with games that still used experience--because it often translated directly into improvement costs--but they didn't care much about how many things you fought or how tough they were, just on how well you succeeded at what you were doing (they also often had baked in some social engineering stuff I'm not a fan of these days, but that's neither here nor there).



I suspect the latter would have gone over better with parts of the fanbase than the former. Some people are really hostile to Milestone advancement.
I am iffy about milestone in theory. I’m in my 40s and a one time 1e player. I want to earn it and survive or die!

However…

My friend has been using milestone and we have been having a chaotic blast…it’s about two sessions a level at this point maybe moving to a third.

And the thrill of new toys is sort of assuaging my “gotta earn that experience” view.

But I was hostile to milestones before. It seemed “cheap” until I saw how fun it could be…

Now it’s a neurotically guilty pleasure.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I am iffy about milestone in theory. I’m in my 40s and a one time 1e player. I want to earn it and survive or die!

Like I've mentioned elsewhere, I started playing OD&D in 1975, and still prefer some experience system to Milestones generally (but that has as much to do with preferring games that are more piecemeal than leveled games or things like Cortex), but honestly, there's a reason even among games that use some kind of XP, basing it on "what you fought" is pretty thin on the ground once you get away from the D&D-sphere.
 

Staffan

Legend
I am iffy about milestone in theory. I’m in my 40s and a one time 1e player. I want to earn it and survive or die!
I see the point with traditional XP, particularly in a more sandboxy campaign where it's up to the PCs to go out and do stuff and choose their own challenges and rewards. But most adventure paths are pretty linear. You might as well directly say that "after the hermitage the PCs go up to level 4" instead of saying "by the time the PCs reach the tower they should be level 4. If they aren't quite there, throw in some 'random' encounters on the way there."
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
If you follow the default rate of progression (about four sessions per level) and give out XP for accomplishments at the prescribed rate, about half of your XP should come from accomplishments instead of combat. If Paizo is not structuring their PF2 adventures around that rate of progression, that’s a major miss.
 

Staffan

Legend
If you follow the default rate of progression (about four sessions per level) and give out XP for accomplishments at the prescribed rate, about half of your XP should come from accomplishments instead of combat. If Paizo is not structuring their PF2 adventures around that rate of progression, that’s a major miss.
These are the specified accomplishment awards for The Show Must Go On, part 1 of Extinction Curse. Each chapter is supposed to be one level.
Chapter 1:
30-80 for the show, plus 30 per PC who put on a signature trick.
Up to 40 for fixing various show problems.
Total: Up to 240 XP (for 4 PCs)

Chapter 2:
Tracking mephit: 10 XP
Recognizing where the abrikandilu are from: 10 XP
Learning where demons came from: 30 XP
Performance duels: up to 60 XP
Rescuing farmers: 30 XP
Total: Up to 140 XP

Chapter 3:
Freeing mayor: 30 XP
Returning Abadaran books: 30 XP
Stopping blood wolf transformation: 10 XP
Saving Harlock: 30 XP
Total: Up to 100 XP

Chapter 4:
None.
In addition to these, there are a number of encounters with possibly nonviolent solutions where the adventure specifies that you get the same XP, but that's just common sense, and I see that as still being encounter XP.
 

kenada

Legend
Supporter
These are the specified accomplishment awards for The Show Must Go On, part 1 of Extinction Curse. Each chapter is supposed to be one level.
Chapter 1:
30-80 for the show, plus 30 per PC who put on a signature trick.
Up to 40 for fixing various show problems.
Total: Up to 240 XP (for 4 PCs)

Chapter 2:
Tracking mephit: 10 XP
Recognizing where the abrikandilu are from: 10 XP
Learning where demons came from: 30 XP
Performance duels: up to 60 XP
Rescuing farmers: 30 XP
Total: Up to 140 XP

Chapter 3:
Freeing mayor: 30 XP
Returning Abadaran books: 30 XP
Stopping blood wolf transformation: 10 XP
Saving Harlock: 30 XP
Total: Up to 100 XP

Chapter 4:
None.
In addition to these, there are a number of encounters with possibly nonviolent solutions where the adventure specifies that you get the same XP, but that's just common sense, and I see that as still being encounter XP.
Thanks. Wow. That is a lot less than what the CRB suggests the GM should be handing out. I assume if you followed its advice anyway, the PCs would be well beyond the adventure’s expectations.

This is where I’m getting about half your XP from accomplishments.

If you don’t want to deal with managing and handing out XP, or if you want to have progression based solely on events in the story, you can ignore the XP process entirely and instead simply decide when the characters level up. Generally, the characters should gain a level every three to four game sessions, just after the most appropriate big event that happens during that time, such as defeating a significant villain or achieving a major goal.​
As mentioned earlier, it’s up to you how much XP to give out for accomplishments. As a general guideline, in a given game session, you’ll typically give several minor awards, one or two moderate awards, and only one major award, if any.​

If you do story-based leveling, the equivalent speed is three or four sessions per level. I assume this rate is meant to be equivalent to the rate of advancement with XP. If you give out accomplishments at the expected rate, that is around 60~170 XP per session from accomplishments (assuming three minor, one to two moderate, and a major every few sessions), or 135 XP on average. Over three to four sessions, that is 405~540 XP, or about half a level on average.
 

ReshiIRE

Adventurer
Somewhat off topic as this applies to systems beyond Pathfinder 2e, but it does seem a lot of adventures published by system creators ignore advise given to GMs by the actual system books, which seems inadvisable. Or is that too presumptious?
 


Staffan

Legend
Thanks. Wow. That is a lot less than what the CRB suggests the GM should be handing out. I assume if you followed its advice anyway, the PCs would be well beyond the adventure’s expectations.
Probably. I went with story-based leveling and just had them level up after each chapter. I mean, there's no way I'm going to throw in extra encounters just to keep up with XP.

Session-based XP is a bit iffy as a concept too, as sometimes a session is maybe two hours long and other times it's eight or ten.
If you do story-based leveling, the equivalent speed is three or four sessions per level. I assume this rate is meant to be equivalent to the rate of advancement with XP. If you give out accomplishments at the expected rate, that is around 60~170 XP per session from accomplishments (assuming three minor, one to two moderate, and a major every few sessions), or 135 XP on average. Over three to four sessions, that is 405~540 XP, or about half a level on average.
I think that's highballing it a little, but not by much. By my calculations:
3 minor: 30 XP
Average 1.5 moderate: 45 XP
Average 1/4 major: 20 XP

So round off to 100 per session or 400 per four sessions. So a little under half.

I think, at least in the early days, there was a fear at Paizo that if they didn't pump their adventures full of encounters, their customers wouldn't feel they were getting their money's worth out of them. I'm pretty sure I saw one of the designers post something to that effect, but it was a couple of years ago.
 


Staffan

Legend
Somewhat off topic as this applies to systems beyond Pathfinder 2e, but it does seem a lot of adventures published by system creators ignore advise given to GMs by the actual system books, which seems inadvisable. Or is that too presumptious?
As Thomas Shey pointed out upthread, just like generals always prepare for the last war, game designers often write for the last edition. This is especially true when it comes to early material, because it's mostly written concurrently with the actual rules, and in many cases before the softer aspects of the game are finalized.

That's also the reason behind the Law of Conservation of Bestiary Utility. Generally speaking, the first Bestiary/Monster Manual will (a) have a high proportion of "classic" monsters, and (b) have a low proportion of well-designed monsters, simply because the designers haven't yet figured out what actually works and what doesn't. Pathfinder 2 suffers a little less from this because they actually have pretty solid (if maybe overtuned) creature design guidelines (no CR 3 dryads with 14 hp and +7 ranged attack dealing d8 damage just because they have a 1/day suggestion).
 

Retreater

Legend
The final test for PF2 for me will be to see if I can write an original adventure, using what I think are appropriate encounters - on large enough maps for tactical movement, roleplaying opportunities catered to my players, etc. I've given up on trying to run the pre-written stuff - my tastes diverge too much from Paizo's design goals. (That's okay, I had the same issue during 4e too.)
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
The final test for PF2 for me will be to see if I can write an original adventure, using what I think are appropriate encounters - on large enough maps for tactical movement, roleplaying opportunities catered to my players, etc. I've given up on trying to run the pre-written stuff - my tastes diverge too much from Paizo's design goals. (That's okay, I had the same issue during 4e too.)

Seems reasonable. Just be cautious about making the maps too big and open; that can end up overly favoring archers and longer ranged spellcasters (and really fast movers like monks) over shorter range attackers (the final battle in Age of Ashes would have been nearly impossible for my Champion/Bard if he didn't have Dimension Door).
 

thullgrim

Adventurer
I’ve run PF2 three separate times up to 5th level. My experiences are with converted AP volumes form PF1. I enjoyed the game and my players seemed to like it. However the math is really, really tight and there are a couple of places where the rules are way to procedural for me (I’m looking at you stealth).

I found myself frequently fighting with the system, whether because of my 4e and 3.x/PF1 experiences or the nature of the game I’m not sure.

My thought is that if I were to try it again it would be as a PFS home game. Those scenarios are written pretty closely to the five room dungeon paradigm and would lend themselves with some editing to fewer, bigger fights. I think I’d also use a static 3 sessions per level.
 

Thomas Shey

Legend
I’ve run PF2 three separate times up to 5th level. My experiences are with converted AP volumes form PF1. I enjoyed the game and my players seemed to like it. However the math is really, really tight and there are a couple of places where the rules are way to procedural for me (I’m looking at you stealth).
I found myself frequently fighting with the system, whether because of my 4e and 3.x/PF1 experiences or the nature of the game I’m not sure.

Its interesting, because in some ways (and the irony of this is not lost on me), I find PF2e the closest to 4e of the various D&D offshoots I've played. I'd have no trouble believing 3e experience could get in the way, because there's some fundamental difference in assumption baked in between those two.
 

Staffan

Legend
Its interesting, because in some ways (and the irony of this is not lost on me), I find PF2e the closest to 4e of the various D&D offshoots I've played. I'd have no trouble believing 3e experience could get in the way, because there's some fundamental difference in assumption baked in between those two.
I'd say that 13th age is closer to 4e than PF2 is, but you can definitely see some 4e stuff in PF2. I think this is primarily a case of convergent evolution. PF1 is basically 3.5e with More Stuff, so the problems of PF1 are basically the same as 3.5e. So it makes sense that in some cases they would come to similar solutions.

Take monster design, for example. 3e used, at least in theory, "organic" rules for designing monsters. Each monster type was basically the same as a (bad) PC class, so HD translated into not only hit points but also attack, save, and skill bonuses. Then stat bonuses and equipment/natural armor was added on top of that, and eventually some actual "runtime" numbers emerged, and in theory you used those plus special abilities to assign a CR to the monster. Except (a) that was really complicated, and left a lot of room for error, and (b) it would often get you monsters with either ridiculous peaks or glaring weaknesses, which was part of what made the CR system a joke (hello Mr. CR 9 frost giant with Will +6). In practice, good designers would have an intuition or if they're lucky formal benchmarks regarding what final stats are appropriate at various CRs, and then massage the stats appropriately. But that could sometimes lead to weirdness like boosting Dex to get a decent Reflex save, and as a consequence ending up with Initiative +8 or something. Plus, there was no formal guidance on what stats were appropriate, just trial and error. And there's very little material around for the public discussing the issue (the one product I can think of is Trailblazer, which was a 3rd party product released near the release of 4e that basically tried to backport a lot of the 4e ideas into 3e).

The obvious solution was of course to start with CR (or level), and set stats based on benchmarks instead. Now, the two systems diverge somewhat on the details (4e has monster roles that set these benchmarks, while PF2 has level provide a range and its up to the designer to make sure that the creature has strengths and weaknesses within those level-based bounds), but they're based on the same principle.

And of course it doesn't hurt that Paizo has one of the more prolific 4e designers, Logan Bonner, on staff. But if I were to hazard a guess, it would be that his role would be to guide away from how things were done in 4e when they didn't work, and perhaps come up with a better solution with hindsight. That is, not to go "Oh, in 4e we solved that problem in this way, so let's copy that" and instead more "In 4e we solved that problem like this, but that in turn caused these issues, so what if we try that way instead?"
 

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top