Pathfinder 2E How is Pathfinder doing?

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I can see the argument, though 13th Age is a little--minimalist?--in some ways for the effect to be as visible there. You're correct, of course, that similar problems lead 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).

Yeah. I'll tell the truth: I'm not a massive fan of the way 4e and post D&D games treat NPCs and PCs as different as they do; I come from games like RQ and others where that's just not a thing, and it feels kind of weird and artificial to me.

But having run 3.5 D&D up through 14th level, I can't say I don't understand it; in addition to making CR a joke (though it wasn't the only reason; having so much ability to bake a cake on a PC didn't help) it made higher level opponents of some types almost impossible to run (because there were so many moving parts).

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?"

Well, its entirely possible in a few cases it was "In 4e we addressed this in this fashion, and I still haven't seen a better solution so far, so maybe we at least want to inform what we do on it." I wasn't a big fan of 4e, but to not say it did some things right would be a--take.

 

[Campbell]

A lot depends on where the fizz was with 4e for you. For the stuff that mattered to me personally (skill gap at run time, tight encounter math, coordination, martial characters that keep up outside of combat and feel like they could credibly face the foes they face) PF2 either matched or improved the situation over 4e.

5e basically took the stuff I did not really care about like core Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warlocks, limited use martial abilities, et. al. and PF2 took the stuff that got my fizz going.

I do kind of miss the Nentir Vale stuff over the higher resolution Golarion stuff, but the games I run with PF2 are pretty much done in a similar setup.

 

[thullgrim]

To me PF2’s biggest strength is tactical combat. Which I love. I just think 4e does it better. The math for both games works. I think monster design was more interesting in 4e and generally I feel monsters are easier to run in 4e from the GMs side of the table.

All that said if I could get more movement and more forced movement in PF2 I think I’d be happy enough. Plus it’s a living, actively developed game with tremendous VTT support and unfortunately, VTT support matters for my main group.

 

[Staffan]

Yeah. I'll tell the truth: I'm not a massive fan of the way 4e and post D&D games treat NPCs and PCs as different as they do; I come from games like RQ and others where that's just not a thing, and it feels kind of weird and artificial to me.

Having grown up on Drakar och Demoner and other BRP-descended games, I see where you're coming from. I just don't think the organic approach works in a level-based system where the numbers can diverge so much. It could work in a flatter level-based system like Alternity, where level primarily worked as a way to force you to spread your XP around* plus gating certain abilities, but not in a system where you're expected to go from fighting goblins to fighting dragons. Particularly not if "balance" is supposed to be a selling point for the game.

It's also a matter of economy of design effort. 3e-style monsters are hard to make, because you have to make all these fiddly choices about feats, skills, and so on, and be aware of how they affect the monster as a whole (and Gygax help you if you forget a skill synergy bonus somewhere!). With 4e-style, you just choose level and role, and you're like 75% done (PF2 is a little more involved since it involves choices at multiple levels, but it's similar).

* In Alternity, the way it worked was that once you got 5+current level XP, you leveled up and they turned into an equal amount of skill points. IIRC you couldn't increase a skill more than once per level, so you couldn't spend it all in one place.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Having grown up on Drakar och Demoner and other BRP-descended games, I see where you're coming from. I just don't think the organic approach works in a level-based system where the numbers can diverge so much. It could work in a flatter level-based system like Alternity, where level primarily worked as a way to force you to spread your XP around* plus gating certain abilities, but not in a system where you're expected to go from fighting goblins to fighting dragons. Particularly not if "balance" is supposed to be a selling point for the game.

Yeah, I understand why in the end the D&D3e approach doesn't really work with how the D&D sphere games operate. On some level I just kind of don't like it, but then, I've not been coy about saying for all the fact I like some parts of PF2e, 13th Age and Shadow of the Demon Lord, and can be convinced to play or run them without too much work, they're not actually my preferred model (Alternity was a weird case because its application of both level and class was, as you say, pretty minimalist).

It's also a matter of economy of design effort. 3e-style monsters are hard to make, because you have to make all these fiddly choices about feats, skills, and so on, and be aware of how they affect the monster as a whole (and Gygax help you if you forget a skill synergy bonus somewhere!). With 4e-style, you just choose level and role, and you're like 75% done (PF2 is a little more involved since it involves choices at multiple levels, but it's similar).

Yeah, like I said, I get it. I just kind of resent the necessity.

* In Alternity, the way it worked was that once you got 5+current level XP, you leveled up and they turned into an equal amount of skill points. IIRC you couldn't increase a skill more than once per level, so you couldn't spend it all in one place.

The levels also served as gates for certain special abilities you could buy. But it would be possible to rework it so those were dependent on something else, and the class function of the system was almost invisible in play (you could build a combat engineer starting from either a Combat Spec or a Tech Op and from the outside it'd be next to invisible the difference).

 

[Justice and Rule]

5e basically took the stuff I did not really care about like core Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warlocks, limited use martial abilities, et. al. and PF2 took the stuff that got my fizz going.

See, I liked the first three (Tieflings, Dragonborn, Warlocks), even if their implementation could be considered flawed. I absolutely love Dragonborn and they are (even after the new Dragon book) still a fairly dull race. Warlocks are a great example of trying to find a new design, but 5E's weird "We're not going to give things out of hand, you gotta pick automatic choices" kind of design where every Warlock should have Eldritch Blast but they make it take up one of your cantrips.

Even limited-used martial abilities aren't necessarily bad, but they implemented them terribly. The Monk is probably their best version, but the problem is that they decided if you wanted to do anything it'd have to cost a resource, you don't get nearly enough, and you can't regain them back in battle. Matt Mercer importing the Grit mechanic for the Gunslinger from PF is something they should do with all those classes, as it encourages people to use the cool stuff as long as you get stuff done. Though I do agree it'd be nice for martials in general to have a few cool at-will gimmicks in general; when I was looking at redoing Monk classes, I felt like each Monk subclass should get one of the ki actions to do for free to really give more a style feel.

The thing is that PF2 just came along and did it better in just about every instance.

 

[glass]

I want single-target save spells that do significantly more damage than same-level AOE spells

I do not have much to say one way or another on the success of PF2, but I wanted to comment on this. I want the opposite, at least for a chunk of the level range. Partly because collateral damage from wizard duels is flavourful, and because large areas of effect tend to be a mixed blessing at best in typical adventuring situations. I would make an exception for very low levels (where large areas of effect are not available yet) and very high levels (where greater control and precision makes sense), but from 5th until say about 15th I want AoE damage to be king.

 

[darrenkitlor]

I find the adventures are better prepared for 2e than the 5e equivalents. The rules, including splatbook monsters and player options, are online for free reference. We have around 3-6 players each week. Not bad considering 5e has 12-17.

We had two people who had only played 5e online join during a session I ran. They adjusted fast and loved the three action economy even if unfamiliar terms needed a sidebar. They got into character and it was truly a great feeling for me as DM.

 

[Lucas Yew]

Yeah. I'll tell the truth: I'm not a massive fan of the way 4e and post D&D games treat NPCs and PCs as different as they do; I come from games like RQ and others where that's just not a thing, and it feels kind of weird and artificial to me.

Huh, the BRP system was "simulationist" in that regard?
A shame I never got to know about it beforehand, as I usually tried to look for legally free rules firstmost when searching for simulationist rule systems... (and I don't like the cosmic horror atmosphere for its most popular version, CoC...)

 

[Campbell]

Huh, the BRP system was "simulationist" in that regard?
A shame I never got to know about it beforehand, as I usually tried to look for legally free rules firstmost when searching for simulationist rule systems... (and I don't like the cosmic horror atmosphere for its most popular version, CoC...)

It's not available for free, but Legend (which is a variant of RuneQuest) is available for $1.

DriveThruRPG

www.drivethrurpg.com