Introducing a new group to PF2 vs. 4E?

[UngainlyTitan]

Our most recent adventuring day (which was at the recommended level according to the module) went like this.
1) Our cleric didn't have to use a single healing spell.
2) The rogue did take 11 points of damage from a trap.
3) Most encounters were over before the enemies' turn came up in Initiative.
4) Enemies that have +3 to hit, 4 damage, with 4 HP. Even en masse, they're not challenging a 5th level party.

So what do I want?

• Some level of tactical play to succeed.
• Trying something other than the same thing every round that's going to obliterate your enemies.
• A little bit of fear and survival.
• Using resources, stretching abilities.

4e and PF2 can at least do these things. 5e without exhaustive house rules cannot, IME.

So, in reverse order, if 4e or pathfinder is the way you go, I would be interested in hearing about your experience but I would dispute that 5e needs houserules to do that.

What you want sound reasonable to me.

Our most recent adventuring day (which was at the recommended level according to the module) went like this.
1) Our cleric didn't have to use a single healing spell.
2) The rogue did take 11 points of damage from a trap.
3) Most encounters were over before the enemies' turn came up in Initiative.

What were you playing? this is contrary to my experience in 5e. In my experience most combats last 3 to 4 rounds with some lasting a lot longer.
I never have trouble forcing healing spells and this is with clerics that will not heal a character that is not down to zero.

4) Enemies that have +3 to hit, 4 damage, with 4 HP. Even en masse, they're not challenging a 5th level party.

Is this for real? or is it rhetorical?

That is basically a goblin, you would need 5 per character for an easy encounter according to the DMG encounter guidelines (page 82 DMG).

My personal is that judged by that table most WoTC encounters are easy to medium with the occasional hard for a party of 4.
Each extra character effectively drops the encounter difficulty by a grade and in practice in tier 2 play the encounters by the numbers are a grade easier than suggested.

 

[Bacon Bits]

Personally, I think the big hurdle with 4e is that it's so difficult to get a handle on all the material for it, especially if you want errata. There is no support from WotC for any of that anymore. I don't even think the old errata documents are available from them anymore. The lack of tools and the difficulty in managing the game is a huge turn-off for me. Plus 4e still has remaining game balance issues with HP bloat, feat taxes, etc. I like the core 4e combat -- with the PHB1 martial characters especially -- but it just seems too daunting. I firmly believe the only reasonable way to play 4e D&D was to use the character builder tools, and, while I imagine you can still find those, I really don't want to run software that I downloaded from some... less than savory sources.

The fact that Paizo has such a good history with their adventure modules would be the final nail for me. PF2 all the way.

But, if you insist on going with 4e, I believe Rob Bodine created 4e libraries for Andy Aiken's Masterplan.

 

[Retreater]

Savage Pathfinder an option? Tactical. Non combat characters still have a combat role. Base resolution is pretty light. Monsters are easy to tune in advance or on the fly. Minions/extras built in. Rise of the Runelords available immediate. Curse of the Crimson Theon available this year. Above average VTT support if necessary.

Savage Pathfinder, in my experience, is a good substitute for D&D and the groups I’ve run 5e and PF2 for both like Savage Pathfinder just as much or more in some cases.

I’d still do 4e if I had the group for it. But I thought I’d offer an alternative that might meet your needs.

I have the big boxed sets from the Kickstarter, so I have the Core Game, all the accoutrements, and the Rise of the Runelords campaign set - and I've also backed the upcoming Curse of the Crimson Throne and APG boxed set. So yes, I could do Savage Pathfinder.

I guess my concern is that since it's not a d20-based system, it's very much out of the wheelhouse of the newer players I have in my group (4 of them are still teenagers). They like "D&D" - so at least the other systems I'm recommending are actually D&D (or based off an adjacent system). And my worry about anything Savage Worlds based is that it's so swingy that it's almost impossible to have any sort of balance or planning. (I haven't seen a Savage Worlds game last more than 3 sessions without a TPK.)

I could bring it up to them. I just don't want to sell them on something that I'm concerned isn't going to work from the get-go.

 

[Retreater]

So, in reverse order, if 4e or pathfinder is the way you go, I would be interested in hearing about your experience but I would dispute that 5e needs houserules to do that.

What you want sound reasonable to me.

My most recent bad experience with 5e is currently being discussed in this thread...
https://www.enworld.org/threads/curse-of-strahd-and-limitations-on-1st-level-play.697316/
It's accidentally crossed over into this discussion as well. The link should give you more insight into what's going on in our 5e game.

What were you playing? this is contrary to my experience in 5e. In my experience most combats last 3 to 4 rounds with some lasting a lot longer.
I never have trouble forcing healing spells and this is with clerics that will not heal a character that is not down to zero.

But yeah, we're playing Curse of Strahd. The long and short of it is, the group was really frustrated being underpowered. Then they quickly levelled up and became overpowered. Then they went to the next town and were underpowered. So they levelled up and now are overpowered.
Currently, they're at 5th level with 5 (sometimes 6 depending on work schedule) characters. Honestly, I think they're ready to go into the Castle and just see how it goes.

Is this for real? or is it rhetorical?

No. that was a real encounter, designed to be one of three in the area for 5th level characters. Professionally designed and placed in the top ranking 5e mega campaign adventure.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

My most recent bad experience with 5e is currently being discussed in this thread...
https://www.enworld.org/threads/curse-of-strahd-and-limitations-on-1st-level-play.697316/
It's accidentally crossed over into this discussion as well. The link should give you more insight into what's going on in our 5e game.

I have read that one and it was interesting.
I am utterly astonished and fascinated that you and I have such a disparate experience of 5e. I liked 4e but I would not go back as my players rejected around level 10 and I found that combat was very long.

But yeah, we're playing Curse of Strahd. The long and short of it is, the group was really frustrated being underpowered. Then they quickly levelled up and became overpowered. Then they went to the next town and were underpowered. So they levelled up and now are overpowered.
Currently, they're at 5th level with 5 (sometimes 6 depending on work schedule) characters. Honestly, I think they're ready to go into the Castle and just see how it goes.

No. that was a real encounter, designed to be one of three in the area for 5th level characters. Professionally designed and placed in the top ranking 5e mega campaign adventure.

also astonished at that encounter for level 5's.
Still this conversation has been interesting since it got me to look more deeply at the math of 5e encounters and the way WoTC designs them.

 

[Retreater]

I am utterly astonished and fascinated that you and I have such a disparate experience of 5e. I liked 4e but I would not go back as my players rejected around level 10 and I found that combat was very long.

Well, I do have 6 players. We have a consistent problem of having enough targets for them to be able to take actions on their turn.
Individual Initiative is a big problem too, I am thinking.

I have 6 players, most of whom have characters who prioritize Dexterity (rightly, because it's clearly the best Ability Score in the game). So they usually have between +3 and +5 to their roll, and usually against opponents who have a +1 or +2 to their Initiative score. So it's typically 4 characters get to act, my one Initiative for a monster group gets to go, the next two characters, and then maybe my last group.
And my monsters are dead before their turn gets up. Usually it ends by Player 5 in the Initiative order.
And if it doesn't, I might have 2-3 stragglers left alive who can't really threaten anybody. I certainly don't make it to the end of a second round.

But yeah, 4 rounds would be great to give people a chance to move into positions, change tactics from ranged to melee, cast spells that have Concentration and duration ("protect the wizard from damage, y'all!"), allow buffs and de-buffs to actually be used. Two round combats are just like Johnny Lawrence in Cobra Kai said "the best defense is more offense" - you just charge in, hack at stuff, and it drops.

I liked the D&D Encounters formula, which lasted levels 1-3 per season. When I tried the Paragon tier of play, combats were insufferably long (3+ hours). But at least I know those encounters would be balanced and could be fun if used occasionally, in between roleplaying, skill challenges, etc. 5e - for me - is a crapshoot. I have literally no idea how to make it work.

In a way, 5e is worse than when I just had to eyeball the challenge of encounters in 2E, in which there were no encounter building tools at all. Why?
1) There are incorrect rules presented in 5e to give us a false sense of balance.
2) The adventures are poorly designed so we have no meaningful metrics of how to stage encounters.
3) The game is more involved than 2e, so we can't reasonably predict synergies between feats, magic items, subclasses, expanded material from other books - there are too many moving parts to plan encounters without any meaningful tools.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Well, I do have 6 players. We have a consistent problem of having enough targets for them to be able to take actions on their turn.
Individual Initiative is a big problem too, I am thinking.

I have 6 players, most of whom have characters who prioritize Dexterity (rightly, because it's clearly the best Ability Score in the game). So they usually have between +3 and +5 to their roll, and usually against opponents who have a +1 or +2 to their Initiative score. So it's typically 4 characters get to act, my one Initiative for a monster group gets to go, the next two characters, and then maybe my last group.
And my monsters are dead before their turn gets up. Usually it ends by Player 5 in the Initiative order.
And if it doesn't, I might have 2-3 stragglers left alive who can't really threaten anybody. I certainly don't make it to the end of a second round.

But yeah, 4 rounds would be great to give people a chance to move into positions, change tactics from ranged to melee, cast spells that have Concentration and duration ("protect the wizard from damage, y'all!"), allow buffs and de-buffs to actually be used. Two round combats are just like Johnny Lawrence in Cobra Kai said "the best defense is more offense" - you just charge in, hack at stuff, and it drops.

I liked the D&D Encounters formula, which lasted levels 1-3 per season. When I tried the Paragon tier of play, combats were insufferably long (3+ hours). But at least I know those encounters would be balanced and could be fun if used occasionally, in between roleplaying, skill challenges, etc. 5e - for me - is a crapshoot. I have literally no idea how to make it work.

In a way, 5e is worse than when I just had to eyeball the challenge of encounters in 2E, in which there were no encounter building tools at all. Why?
1) There are incorrect rules presented in 5e to give us a false sense of balance.
2) The adventures are poorly designed so we have no meaningful metrics of how to stage encounters.
3) The game is more involved than 2e, so we can't reasonably predict synergies between feats, magic items, subclasses, expanded material from other books - there are too many moving parts to plan encounters without any meaningful tools.

Well for what it is worth, this is my experience. I ignore the CR system. I look at the XP table on page 82 of the DMG.
In my experience (barring the odd outlier) most encounters in WoTC published material are easy or medium with the odd hard for a party of 4.
If you add a PC the risk category drops a level. That is, Deadly goes to Hard; Hard > Medium; Medium > Easy.

This is true up to about level 7 where the encounter difficulty drops a grade for a party of 4.
I have found that it helps to look at the encounter XP and difficulty grade because it increments in a way I have found reliable, even if at high levels you are looking a Deady by 3 for a hard encounter.

Beyond level 7, I would activate the encounter triggered and at least 2 others around them and hand tune the boss fights.
This worked up to about level 12 or so. At that point I ignore the average fights, let them be trivial/easy, it makes the players feel good and double up the boss fights.
From about level 16 or so I was hand rolling boss fights at deadly level by 2, though be careful of casters. Clever tactics from casters can kill a party.
After level 18, I have yet to run a deadly encounter.

So I guess, I disagree with your point 3. That said I have not run stuff with the Monsters of the Multiverse type monsters and cannot say if they help of not.

I think you should check out some of the combat episodes of Critical Role, I would recommend the Dragon fights in the Chroma Conclave arc, they show case what a 5e party can do.

I do not know if any of the Mighty Nein combats are as good.

 

[iserith]

I have a group that has largely played only 5e. If you've read my previous posts about them, you might know how I've struggled to present challenges in 5e (too hard or too easy). Having run both PF2 and 4E, I realize that either system would do what I want to do better - they want thrilling combats, character build options, etc.
My struggle is ... which system? There are pros and cons to each.

• I think 4E is smoother than PF2 (and I think better designed).
• But 4E has big HP bloat and combats can take 2 hours (or more).
• 4E is out of print and doesn't have easily accessible online tools, whereas PF2 has free access to their rules online, free character builders, and is currently in stock.

While the decision is months out, and I'm certainly going to be getting my group's feedback, I'd like to have my research ready to bring to the table.

Are there any more pros and cons I should bring to the discussion?

Putting in my recommendation for D&D 4e. If you can figure out the tools, it's just like the glory days of 2010.

I ran a 5th-level D&D 4e game last Saturday in Eberron on Roll20. Three big set piece battles (Level +2 to +4), 2 Complexity 3 skill challenges, 2 Complexity 1 skill challenges, character intros, and two 5-minute breaks in 4 hours of play time (almost to the second, as planned). And these were with players who have less than a few months of sporadic D&D 4e play for experience. (They all play D&D 5e.)

Just like any other RPG, D&D 4e is only as slow as the players and DM. So don't let that stop you from giving it a go.

 

[billd91]

Well, I do have 6 players. We have a consistent problem of having enough targets for them to be able to take actions on their turn.
Individual Initiative is a big problem too, I am thinking.

I have 6 players, most of whom have characters who prioritize Dexterity (rightly, because it's clearly the best Ability Score in the game). So they usually have between +3 and +5 to their roll, and usually against opponents who have a +1 or +2 to their Initiative score. So it's typically 4 characters get to act, my one Initiative for a monster group gets to go, the next two characters, and then maybe my last group.
And my monsters are dead before their turn gets up. Usually it ends by Player 5 in the Initiative order.
And if it doesn't, I might have 2-3 stragglers left alive who can't really threaten anybody. I certainly don't make it to the end of a second round.

If that is your initiative problem, group initiative isn’t going to fix it. Either the party members all go first, or your NPCs/monsters do. And that means your adventurers are probably going to stomp their opposition faster and harder than they are now.
One option to deal with your initiative problem is to break things up. Don’t roll for initiative for your monsters. Spread your forces evenly out across the d20 range. Then you get a chance to get your actions in more regularly.

 

[Velderan]

The last time I tried to sneak in A5e elements into the ongoing 5e game, it proved a disaster. Whether starting from level 1 in A5e would take care of those issues, I don't know. I have a feeling it won't if the core game structure is the same.
I think the main problem with 5e is that the only way a monster can challenge the party is with spells (or spell-like effects), which completely overpower the group. For example, I can't reliably hit with the monster, or if I do it's something like 3 points of damage. Or I drop a fireball which kills half the party, even with successful saves. It's like there's no middle ground.

What were the issues with A5e?

I've not played it or read the rules, but I've seen comments that it isn't a supplement to WotC core 5e but a replacement for it that is capable of running WotC published material with minor tweaks. Maybe a clean start with a new campaign solely using A5e is what you need? From previous posts, it sounds like your group (if this is the same one) really enjoys 5e and getting them to play something else is going to be a tough sell so maybe another flavor of 5e is the right path.