Pathfinder 2 e vs D&D 5e (high lvl play)

[Mistborn]

In various discussions, there’s often information that most D&D players don’t play beyond level 12. Does Pathfinder 2e have a similar issue, or is this just something specific to D&D?

 

[payn]

I will preface this by saying I have been a player in a 5e campaign that went to 20. The 2 campaigns I ran in 5e ended around level 7 and 12 and I was a player in another that ended at 13. I am currently GMing my first 1-20 PF2e campaign using 2 published APs, Abomination Vaults and Stolen Fate, so I have some experience with both systems, including high level play. All my 5e play was under the 2014 rules, I haven't used the 2024 rules or done much beyond flip through the book in a store so maybe the experience is better now. PF2e started off with the original rules and migrated to the Remaster rules around level 8, which wasn't particularly problematic.

The PF2e campaign I am currently GMing is at level 15 and for the most part the game holds up. If an encounter is rated as a Severe encounter, the party will be challenged and have to rely on good tactics and work together to make it through. I don't have any issues with knocking a PC or 2 unconscious in those fights. Moderate encounters still make the group use some tactics, but typically no one gets knocked out or is in any real danger. Low or trivial encounters are no challenge at all and typically are over quick.

IME the one thing I will say that both systems have is the fights tend to become longer as the party increases in level, so if you don't enjoy combat then high level play might not be your thing. We'll see how things go as we get closer to 20 but if it ends up like the last couple 5e sessions for our level 20 campaign where an entire 3 hour session could be a combat that needed to be finished the following week, I'll never run PF2e to 20 again.

Its interesting to read this becasue my 5E experience was different than my past D&D experience. When we played 5E, it was very quick at the earliest levels to run combats. About mid level 7-11-ish combats got pretty lengthy. However, once we hit 13+ combats were lightning quick again.

I cant say I didnt like that.

 

[Velderan]

Its interesting to read this becasue my 5E experience was different than my past D&D experience. When we played 5E, it was very quick at the earliest levels to run combats. About mid level 7-11-ish combats got pretty lengthy. However, once we hit 13+ combats were lightning quick again.

I cant say I didnt like that.

I wasn't the one DMing in my experience playing from 13-20 so I can only guess the cause. One thing to note was we had 6-7 players for that campaign and our PF2e campaign is also 6 players so combats are generally going to take longer to begin with if scaled to 6 compared to the more common 4. I do remember the DM using ogre zombies fairly often as mooks and I don't think he used any third party bestiaries, so the monsters were all 5e monster manual creatures which don't tend to have a reputation for being particularly difficult at higher levels beyond just being sacks of HP.

 

[CommodoreKong]

Well, 5E with bounded accuracy means that everything remains relevant. Even high level PCs must fear armies of low level things. It creates a world that feels more logical in beings relation to one another. Advancement is less getting tons of +1s to offense and defense, and represented in more go power with HPs. Some of the downsides mean monsters often feel like punching bags, and are vulnerable to high level PC abilities. Which is why legendary resistances have been added to give "boss" creatures more staying power. Working as a team will make the game easier, but it isnt required to be successful. 5E, thus feels consistent in experience throughout the leveling process.

Unlike a 5E team threatened by an army, a thousand goblins wouldn't scratch high level PF2 PCs. The interesting differentiation here is that by virtue of a higher defense, big powerful caster spells are rendered useless against "boss" creatures. The key will be working together as a team to defeat a solo challenge, making melee characters feel more important and casters lsightly less powerful than traditional approach. Unlike 5E, in PF2 if the players dont work their characters together like a team, they will be lose. Which is why if the challenge level seems too daunting, a GM ought to use moderate or lower encounters.

Both Legendary Resistance in 5E and strong monsters having very high saving throws that they almost never fail in Pathfinder 2E to both be pretty unsatisfying if you're playing a caster.

I'm hoping to get to the first solo monster in my Draw Steel game soon (we've had a few weeks off due to work travel from various people in the group) and I'm interested in seeing how the solo feature of being able to remove a status condition in exchange for taking some damage feels. Overall from what I've seen I like that all creatures can be affected by status conditions and abilities from the heroes, but can shrug them off in exchange for damage. Either the creature is affected or they take damage to remove it, which makes the players feel like they did something.

 

[payn]

Both Legendary Resistance in 5E and strong monsters having very high saving throws that they almost never fail in Pathfinder 2E to both be pretty unsatisfying if you're playing a caster.

I'm hoping to get to the first solo monster in my Draw Steel game soon (we've had a few weeks off due to work travel from various people in the group) and I'm interested in seeing how the solo feature of being able to remove a status condition in exchange for taking some damage feels. Overall from what I've seen I like that all creatures can be affected by status conditions and abilities from the heroes, but can shrug them off in exchange for damage. Either the creature is affected or they take damage to remove it, which makes the players feel like they did something.

I agree. If I was doing it id make it that save or die only work when a target is bloodied.