log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E Pace of fighting

Nilbog

Snotling Herder
We find it takes marginally less per combat than 5e, but there isn't much in it. I will caveat this by saying we have been playing 5e since day one and PF2 for about 6 months, so we aren't anywhere near as familiar with the rules as we are with 5e.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Retreater

Legend
We've gotten to level 8 in Pathfinder 2e. Here are my impressions.
Combat is slower in PF2 than 5e.
Unless you're dealing with newbies who don't know what they're doing in 5e and veteran players in PF2.
But with the player experience being equal, 5e will run much faster - but probably will also be less tactical and interesting.
 

FrozenNorth

Adventurer
I think you are really asking whether combat feels like a slog or not. If the combat is fun, it doesn’t feel like a slog even if numerically it takes more time.

I can definitely see PF2 combat with 4 characters being really fun. We played with 6 players, over VTT, with no automation and several players who didn’t grasp the rules. Each round took 30 min at low level.
 

nevin

Explorer
Really? I'm quite surprised to hear that given how the new iteration of Pathfinder has effectively removed save or die, and even the more punishing save or suck effects, from the game
they took away magical Save or die and replaced it with really swingy martial damage. So when it swings the wrong way you just die no save.
 




Celtavian

Dragon Lord
not in my book. they just replaced what they called over powered magic with random luck. Works the same though.

Not sure what you mean by this. PF2 combat is fast and furious, like 5E. Lots of damage both by the players and by the monsters accelerating the combat round. That's how both games accelerated combat. They made both sides hit real hard, so hit points for either side would last 3 or 4 rounds, maybe a little longer if it's a real tough enemy. Monsters normally don't have healing, but players do which often keeps them on top in those fights against really powerful enemies.
 

ronaldsf

Explorer
Since "those higher level monsters will shake off the worst effects of your casters' best shutdown abilities pretty consistently" rational players simply cease to cast those spells. This leads to fewer choices, a poorer game.

I'm getting the impression Paizo and it's fan base entered collective hysteria. The very notion that a Wizard could ever win a fight by shutting down the big bad seems to fill the Paizo board with outrage and disgust. And this is reflected in the Incapacitation rule.

All this does is drive Wizard players away from using Incapacitation spells, specifically single-target ones, at all.

There's this great mismatch where the game seems to assume you'll still cast those spells even though you could use your high level slots for ... other high level spells? Why would I choose a spell nerfed into oblivion when I can choose another spell, say a damage spell, that isn't?

Inexplicably, Paizo then created a few spells with a decent effect even when the monster does save. This just makes it that much harder to get rid of Incapacitation as the clumsy ugly mechanism it is. Grrr...

I don't deny that players of casters would give up on casting those spells against higher-level creatures, but I do question whether that's wise. I've seen making a scary brute creature blind, even for just 1 round, negating 1 or 2 scary crits and hits and knockout on more than 1 occasion, and even -1s and -2s have some impact too many times to rule those spells out as "useless" against such creatures. Burning Hands, a 1st-level spell, making a Level 15 creature miss 20% of its attacks for 1 round is nothing to sneeze at.
 

Green Onceler

Explorer
even -1s and -2s have some impact too many times to rule those spells out as "useless" Burning Hands, a 1st-level spell, making a Level 15 creature miss 20% of its attacks for 1 round is nothing to sneeze at.

But, how does that feel for the Sorcerer, making such a modest contribution to the "fast and furious" combat. Spellcasting certainly doesn't appear "fast and furious" to me.

Not sure what you mean by this. PF2 combat is fast and furious,
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
But, how does that feel for the Sorcerer, making such a modest contribution to the "fast and furious" combat. Spellcasting certainly doesn't appear "fast and furious" to me.

Depends on level.

A sorcerer doesn't contribute as much damage at low level, but boosts damage by reducing AC or saves or adding an action in those early levels.

Then at higher levels they add heavy to the fast and furious damage. My lvl 14 bard added huge damage to several encounters. He did 240 points against 3 targets in a round with a lvl 6 spell that kept one mob stunned for the entire fight. Against another group 302 points of damage in a round with one target taking 104 points and me gaining 52 temporary hit points in a round. Against a dragon recently he hasted the entire group, then against a dragon he hit the monster with a 5th level synesthesia followed by a true target spell in the same round allowing the other PCs to totally destroy the monster in a round.

Casters start off real slow, painfully slow. Then at higher level some kind of switch flips it seems around lvl 11 where they can start blowing things up. It seems to get better the more I level past lvl 11.

I'm still not exactly sure why. I think maybe because mooks at that level are more dangerous as a group with high hit points and AC, but often lower saves which seems to favor blasting them apart with powerful AoE. Or maybe the math seems to shift a little where saves are not as wide. I'm not sure. Or spells just get better at lvl 6 and up. Or maybe a combination of all of those factors.
 

Halloween Horror For 5E

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top