Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2 and the two dichotomies

[transmission89]

If you find the moderate encounter too “intense” for your group (as In perhaps Paizo’s definition of what is expected from the player for moderate doesn’t match your group’s vibe), as a GM, use the weak monster template. The number adjustments from that will provide a good enough impact on the dice rolling without having to resort to more players or other shenanigans a GM might have to conjure up (given you’ve already got enough work as a GM, so take it easy and use a ready made tool already provided for you)

 

[JmanTheDM]

sometimes this is easier said than done, but another HUGE way to influence encounter difficulty is to play with 5PC's instead of 4, but keep all the encounters the same.

Cheers,

J.

 

[CapnZapp]

All d20 systems are eminently hackable.

Counter argument: PF2 is very much not hackable.

Trust me, I have tried - but every change you make is immediately countered by the ripple effects to any of the over 2000+ feats in the game. Change this here, and you will inadvertently have nerfed (or boosted) something unexpected over there.

 

[CapnZapp]

We didn't play to a high enough level to really see as much of PF2e as our group could have. What you posted in that paragraph actually REALLY intrigues me. One problem I've had occasionally with PF1e is how magic CAN (that's a can, not will as some try to imply) outmatch everything else. It was a difficulty with D20 all the way back to 3e. I like the idea that those who are martial characters may stand a better chance.

Yeah...

Martials are excellent at low levels and remain useful throughout. That's not the problem.

The problem is that as the GM you come to the realization that even supposedly magical monsters are just better off clawing you to death.

It's not that magic is useless in absolute terms (if you get to choose the good spells). It's that relative to monster melee it pales in comparison.

It's just not fun when a built-in ability (and I mean everything from claws and bites to something like a breath attack) is so clearly superior to what the Spells chapter can offer a given monster.

Fearing "smart" (spellcasting) monsters more than brutes is to me central to the D&D experience.

In PF2 caster monsters don't feel right. They aren't the glass cannons they ought to be - they're not glass because they follow monster creation rules, and they're not cannons because magic just never is (since it's available to PCs as well)...

 

[nevin]

Yeah...

Martials are excellent at low levels and remain useful throughout. That's not the problem.

The problem is that as the GM you come to the realization that even supposedly magical monsters are just better off clawing you to death.

It's not that magic is useless in absolute terms (if you get to choose the good spells). It's that relative to monster melee it pales in comparison.

It's just not fun when a built-in ability (and I mean everything from claws and bites to something like a breath attack) is so clearly superior to what the Spells chapter can offer a given monster.

Fearing "smart" (spellcasting) monsters more than brutes is to me central to the D&D experience.

In PF2 caster monsters don't feel right. They aren't the glass cannons they ought to be - they're not glass because they follow monster creation rules, and they're not cannons because magic just never is (since it's available to PCs as well)...

Well after years of everyone screaming about smart casters being too effective this was predictable. Everything that takes away from players options takes away from DM options. I think pathfinders strategy for controlling magical power creep is like squeezing the egg in your hand because you might drop it. They just broke it

 

[CapnZapp]

The sad thing is, 5E had already solved the puzzle a full four years earlier... Seeing PF2 go for such a heavy-handed approach (yet one decidedly less fun) was a disappointment.

It's a contributing factor to me suspecting Paizo didn't even look at 5E and the winds that are blowing since 2015 during PF2 design - a fatal error if you ask me.

 

[nevin]

Its. Ot

I dunno, the game is balanced to enhance drama and tension. Monsters and NPCs in PF2E are tuned to increase danger to the party while being less versatile so that they're simpler for GMs to run. Since PCs have greater access to healing abilities and ways to shift the battlefield, that kind of needs to countered by higher stats for equal-level monsters.

If the game were to lower monster stats, then to maintain a situation where Monster Level = PC Level (to keep encounter balancing simple and intuitive), then there would need to be much more healing abilities on monsters. Which is arguably less fun and interesting for everyone involved.

Levels exist as a concept so that it's easier for GMs and adventure writers to balance encounters. I know you're running an AP, but in the future if you prefer monsters to have similar stats, then perhaps build encounters with a higher # of lower-level monsters? That can prevent the sense that monsters perpetually hit and defend better than PCs. PF2E's math lets you tune encounters for the desired result that you want

I understand what you are saying but drama and tension cant be the default setting. Otherwise it ceases to be drama and just becomes a pain in ass instead.

 

[wakedown]

It's a contributing factor to me suspecting Paizo didn't even look at 5E and the winds that are blowing since 2015 during PF2 design - a fatal error if you ask me.

I think this myth has been dispelled.. D&D Next Playtest hit the public in May 2012. From the PF2 team, Bonner was still at Wizards at that time, having just released War of the Spider Queen.

Radney-MacFarland, IIRC, also has things out there on social media which indicate experience with 5E prior to PF2E.

Bulmahn is credited on SotDL adventures in 2016, so at least had that exposure.

Seifter came out of the PFS Community (RogueEidolon) and was pretty intense into the rules, so it wouldn't surprise me if he was the one member of the team who hadn't actually ever tried Next or 5E, but PF2E AFAIK was also his first time ever contributing to rules for a TTRPG.

I believe there's also been some insider commentary out there on social media from former team members that suggest a lot of the PF2E systems were hastily developed all alongside each other for the playtest 2018Q1 and bolted together to make the aggressive release schedule.

That said, PF2E was something they were planning back in 2014 as a response to D&D Next but ended up delaying it 4 years, so it's outright unbelievable they would be ignorant of Next/5E for those tactical decisions.

 

[CapnZapp]

so it's outright unbelievable they would be ignorant of Next/5E for those tactical decisions.

I would have thought so too.

Imagine my surprise and bafflement when I can find absolutely zero traces of 5E's design philosophy (if not outright design elements) in the CRB!

What I'm saying is that the intent might have been there, but that matters little when there aren't any results to show for it...

that suggest a lot of the PF2E systems were hastily developed all alongside each other for the playtest 2018Q1 and bolted together to make the aggressive release schedule

This unfortunately shows. Painfully so.

 

[ronaldsf]

Imagine my surprise and bafflement when I can find absolutely zero traces of 5E's design philosophy (if not outright design elements) in the CRB!

It is interesting to read this, after just having read through a thread on the Pathfinder subreddit where 1e players were saying they weren't moving to 2e because "it's just trying to be 5e"...