Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[JmanTheDM]

How do you feel PF2 compares\contrasts to 4e as far as feel? 4e has had a lot of influence on PF2 and I was curious how much you could tell.

so, you might not get a good reply here.

4e was a LONG time ago. I was a player vs a GM, I didn't really read the rules, and i was kind of being a bit of a S@%t Disturber in game because "bah, 4e, get off of my lawn, this ain't D&D".

with that said, I personally don't find a lot of similarities, likely due to time, age, and system familiarity.

• I found 4e to be even easier mode D&D than 5e currently is. PF2 bring back the fear of combats - I like this. so having as a viable option "run like hell", appeals to my sense of play.
• 4e had daily, encounter and at-will powers and really felt to me like "ok, everyone is magical now". PF2 still feels like swinging a sword, rather than "activating" a power.
• I think that 4e had short rests between encounters? (think this is where 5e got it from). I don't really like the rest and heal in 1 hour. PF has the medicine skill that can also heal you but natural healing is much slower. my game right now, party members ARE walking around with lower than max HP due to time constraints.
• it feels to me like tactical options are similar between games.
• it also feels to be that the default is to have level appropriate encounters (which I'm not a fan of, and would modify in a home brew game, to introduce some varity including cake-walk encounters).

so, TL;DR - and only 1 man's opinion.

• combats feel deadlier than 4e
• out of combat options, including formalized "exploration" activities feel deeper
• the 3-action vs. daily/encounter/at-wills I like more. I like the difference between prepared spell casters who need to choose spell slots and spells to memorize - again, this directly stimulates the "old-school" parts of my brain that other editions moved away from.

I'm sure there is a TON more that I'm missing. comparing it to 4e is really hard for me due to how long ago. its easy to compare it to 5e, but that's not what you asked

Cheers,

J.

 

[Retreater]

I wanted to update this based on creating my own encounters for PF2. Using the system in the Core Rules, I created a small dungeon with 4 combat encounters to test the new party configuration. Three of them were fun skirmishes, the fourth one was a "severe" challenge the party could have avoided. That fourth fight was a knock-down, drag-out battle with undead that was very scary at points. But it played great. I definitely have the confidence to create my own encounters in the future. Much better balanced (from those 4 encounters) than PF1 or D&D5 (trying to use the Encounter guidelines in the DMG).

 

[Retreater]

How do you feel PF2 compares\contrasts to 4e as far as feel? 4e has had a lot of influence on PF2 and I was curious how much you could tell.

I might be in a good position to answer that, since I'm currently GMing PF2 as well as DMed two short 4E campaigns in the past year.
I'll make a (noncomprehensive) list here, and if you need further explanation of any point, let me know.

Compare

• AEDU Design: With the exception of a few daily resources (spell slots), many powers can be regained after a 10 minute break: focus spells, focus points, using nonmagical healing checks, etc. So this allows parties to conserve resources and spread them out but otherwise take each encounter as a fresh experience.
• Skill Feats: These work like utility powers. You need to expend a feat selection to attempt certain skill uses.
• Reaction powers: The reaction resource (normally attacks of opportunity in PF1, 3.x, and 5e) now have many more uses. The Champion's reactions set him up like a 4E-style defender, for example.
• You Don't Have to Have a Cleric: Healing is really spread out, especially with the Medicine skill. In Exploration mode (outside of combat), you can basically heal up to max HP between fights without expending spells, Hit Dice, etc.
• Critical Hits: Deadly weapons (which deal extra bonus damage on a crit), magic weapons that deal fire damage on crits, and other features make criticals mean more than just "I roll extra damage"
• Positioning: Combat maneuvers (which can also be put onto spells with a feat) let characters control the battlefield, shoving, tripping, sliding, etc.
• More Front-Loaded Power: Characters at lower levels have more HP and access to more abilities than their 5e counterparts, seemingly closer to the power level of low-level 4e characters.
• Ancestry/Race Powers: Your ancestry feats seem closer to how 4e handled race.

Contrast

• Encounter Design: Doesn't have the same "encounter budget" formula
• Minions: There are no minions in PF2
• Monster Spells: Enemies use spells and feats much like PCs. They don't have simple "powers" and you have to look up everything in the Core Rulebook.
• Conditions: PF2 has many, many, many conditions, and they are handed out like Halloween candy. I feel like 4E gave out a lot of conditions, but they had similar effects.
• PC Options: The PF2 Core Rulebook player options are vastly more than the 4E Player's Handbook 1.
• No bloodied condition
• Monsters aren't easily modified up or down in power, still require templates, etc.

 

[billd91]

I might be in a good position to answer that, since I'm currently GMing PF2 as well as DMed two short 4E campaigns in the past year.
I'll make a (noncomprehensive) list here, and if you need further explanation of any point, let me know.

Thanks for the comparison, Retreater. I'm trying to try it out some more via virtual PaizoCon. I really like the 3 action economy, but the rest of your post has me squirming, and not in a good way.

 

[Retreater]

Thanks for the comparison, Retreater. I'm trying to try it out some more via virtual PaizoCon. I really like the 3 action economy, but the rest of your post has me squirming, and not in a good way.

If you can't get into a game at PaizoCon, write me a post on here and I can do a sample Roll20 session for anyone who's interested. Just need a little time to prep it.

 

[Porridge]

I might be in a good position to answer that, since I'm currently GMing PF2 as well as DMed two short 4E campaigns in the past year.
I'll make a (noncomprehensive) list here, and if you need further explanation of any point, let me know.

Compare

• AEDU Design: With the exception of a few daily resources (spell slots), many powers can be regained after a 10 minute break: focus spells, focus points, using nonmagical healing checks, etc. So this allows parties to conserve resources and spread them out but otherwise take each encounter as a fresh experience.
• Skill Feats: These work like utility powers. You need to expend a feat selection to attempt certain skill uses.
• Reaction powers: The reaction resource (normally attacks of opportunity in PF1, 3.x, and 5e) now have many more uses. The Champion's reactions set him up like a 4E-style defender, for example.
• You Don't Have to Have a Cleric: Healing is really spread out, especially with the Medicine skill. In Exploration mode (outside of combat), you can basically heal up to max HP between fights without expending spells, Hit Dice, etc.
• Critical Hits: Deadly weapons (which deal extra bonus damage on a crit), magic weapons that deal fire damage on crits, and other features make criticals mean more than just "I roll extra damage"
• Positioning: Combat maneuvers (which can also be put onto spells with a feat) let characters control the battlefield, shoving, tripping, sliding, etc.
• More Front-Loaded Power: Characters at lower levels have more HP and access to more abilities than their 5e counterparts, seemingly closer to the power level of low-level 4e characters.
• Ancestry/Race Powers: Your ancestry feats seem closer to how 4e handled race.

Contrast

• Encounter Design: Doesn't have the same "encounter budget" formula
• Minions: There are no minions in PF2
• Monster Spells: Enemies use spells and feats much like PCs. They don't have simple "powers" and you have to look up everything in the Core Rulebook.
• Conditions: PF2 has many, many, many conditions, and they are handed out like Halloween candy. I feel like 4E gave out a lot of conditions, but they had similar effects.
• PC Options: The PF2 Core Rulebook player options are vastly more than the 4E Player's Handbook 1.
• No bloodied condition
• Monsters aren't easily modified up or down in power, still require templates, etc.

Thanks for this comparison -- I've never played D&D 4e myself, but I've heard people talk about it, so I found this compare and contrasting very interesting.

• Conditions: PF2 has many, many, many conditions, and they are handed out like Halloween candy. I feel like 4E gave out a lot of conditions, but they had similar effects.

Aside: While it's true that PF2 has a lot of conditions, I think a lot of this is just a consequence of the designers getting "key word happy", not an indication of the complexity of the game.

For example, several of PF2's "conditions" are just descriptions for varying degrees of being hidden -- "undetected", "observed", etc -- which could have just been kept in the stealth and perception sections. Several more of PF2's "conditions" are just descriptions of a creature's attitude with respect to diplomacy -- "friendly", "unfriendly", "indifferent", etc -- which could just have been kept in the description of the diplomacy skill. But putting them under the list of "conditions" for reference doesn't actually may the game any more complex (though it does make the game look more intimidating).

To put it another way, I think everyone will agree that D&D 5e does a great job of streamlining conditions. But most of conditions PF2's conditions also exist in 5e, it's just that many of them aren't given a specific name or listed in the "conditions" section.

For example, 5e has an analog of PF2's "dying" condition -- in 5e it's the number of death saves failed -- it's just 5e (reasonably) didn't bother giving this a special name. In 5e the conditions "lightly obscured", "heavily obscured", "unseen", "lightly encumbered", and "heavily encumbered" all exist, but 5e (reasonably) doesn't bother listing them in its list of conditions.

And most of the other PF2 conditions that don't appear in 5e's list of conditions still exist in 5e, but are just described under the relevant spells that bring these conditions about instead of being given a special name. E.g., the spells Confusion, Fear, Ray of Enfeeblement, Enthrall, Slow, Haste, etc. describe the analogs of the PF2 conditions Confused, Panicked, Enfeebled, Fascinated, Slowed, Quickened, etc., but just don't give them special names.

I think overall 5e's approach is better -- it makes a game that's more accessible to new players. But PF2's decision to "code" everything doesn't actually make PF2 any harder to play. It just makes it more intimidating to new players.

 

[CapnZapp]

For us 4E encouraged difficult combats (since trivial ones were uninteresting). But difficult combats took very long - 4E encourages you to really take time to think about your "move"; like a really engaging and interesting tactical board game. We found we didn't want to play 4E like 3E/PF/5E, where you might just coast through a fight.

You really want to minmax your turn, somewhat like in chess. But this left too little time for adventure progress. It started feeling like we were role-playing for the half hour before and after the session's big fight, but ultimately that we were playing a board game with roleplay trappings. The story became a wrapper for great combats.

This was ultimately the reason we stopped playing 4E.

In contrast 3E, 5E and Pathfinder all feature combat encounters that, while different in many aspects, have one thing in common: they set up quicker and you aren't tempted into too-slow resolution.

While 4E combats are tactically very fun and interesting, with lots of moves and bonuses and conditions, I far prefer 3E/PF/5E style combat. Just engaging enough to be interesting, but not so engaging and interesting that combat eats into roleplay and story time.

tl;dr: the biggest difference is that difficult combats take longer in 4E (when played "right"). The reason this difference is the biggest is that it is our reason to play one game and not the other

 

[dave2008]

For us 4E encouraged difficult combats (since trivial ones were uninteresting). But difficult combats took very long - 4E encourages you to really take time to think about your "move"; like a really engaging and interesting tactical board game. We found we didn't want to play 4E like 3E/PF/5E, where you might just coast through a fight.

You really want to minmax your turn, somewhat like in chess. But this left too little time for adventure progress. It started feeling like we were role-playing for the half hour before and after the session's big fight, but ultimately that we were playing a board game with roleplay trappings. The story became a wrapper for great combats.

This was ultimately the reason we stopped playing 4E.

In contrast 3E, 5E and Pathfinder all feature combat encounters that, while different in many aspects, have one thing in common: they set up quicker and you aren't tempted into too-slow resolution.

While 4E combats are tactically very fun and interesting, with lots of moves and bonuses and conditions, I far prefer 3E/PF/5E style combat. Just engaging enough to be interesting, but not so engaging and interesting that combat eats into roleplay and story time.

tl;dr: the biggest difference is that difficult combats take longer in 4E (when played "right"). The reason this difference is the biggest is that it is our reason to play one game and not the other

How would you compare 4e to PF2e?

 

[Lackofname]

For us 4E encouraged difficult combats (since trivial ones were uninteresting). But difficult combats took very long - 4E encourages you to really take time to think about your "move"; like a really engaging and interesting tactical board game. We found we didn't want to play 4E like 3E/PF/5E, where you might just coast through a fight.

<snip>

From my experience, 4e and 3.5 fights took the same amount of time, it was just the amount of time per-round was different. In 3.5, the fighter's round was just him rolling multiple attacks, resolving it, then that moved on. Then the wizard and cleric spent time shuffling their spells, reading their spells off, resolving that. The DM would only get 2-3 actions because there was usually only 1 NPC monster, but he had to flip between statblocks and spells, etc, and 4-5 Pcs vs 1 monster meant the monster getting hosed. A fight would take an hour or two but only span maybe 3 rounds.

The same fight in 4e, the fighter had a few more options, but the wizard had less. The mechanics for any sort of choice was generally right there on the card, rather than needing to dive into books. There were more targets to take damage, so enemies lasted longer overall (however the fewer enemies, the more they got hosed by conditions). An hour fight could go into 8-9 rounds.

 

[MaskedGuy]

Never really played 4e so I suppose I shouldn't comment, but in my experience lot of comments about 2e seeming similar to D&D 4e or 5e is confusing streamlining in general being similar to those games.

Like all three of those are streamlined compared to D&D 3.5, but they do it in very different ways.

Anyhoo, regarding terms, 2e uses more programming language style terminology. This is because Pathfinder 1e had lot of rule arguments caused by stuff like "Okay, does this 'attack' counts as 'attack' because the rule didn't say it is 'attack'?". I can't really pull full list of examples similar to that, but 2e tries to make it clear what the ability is rule wise so there is no confusion of what the ability actually does.

How that compares to 5e's approach? Well I at least hate 5e's approach since lot of it is just gm being like "Umm, I guess that sounds about right" Especially when it comes to skill results...

I really look forward to seeing how 2e plays at high level, in playtest at least I noticed the interesting with with it taking about same amount of rounds and irl time as low level encounters did, so that is very promising from point of view of avoiding the 1e "Okay, single round at high levels takes much longer than same round in low levels" thing