Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E - does it play better than it looks at first glance + guides/resources for new DMs

[Ruin Explorer]

So I realized I actually have PF2E and a fair bit of material for it via Humble Bundle and my brother, and honestly, I'm a little bored of 5E, but don't want to go for a drastically less crunchy system like Dungeon World at the moment. Also I've heard good things about the monsters, as compared to 5E.

I've started reading through PF2E, and there are a couple of things I'm not really liking, but maybe I'm not getting. Particularly the "bitty"-ness of the bonuses and so on. Huge numbers of things at lower levels seem to give a +1 bonus to a skill check under specific circumstances. Now, unless I'm misunderstanding severely, that's a pretty tiny bonus. Making it circumstantial means it needs to be evaluated as to when it applies every single time (rather than being, say, a +1 to Diplomacy, it'll be a +1 to Diplomacy in X situation), which means wasting time for a tiny bonus. And often these are things that the text represents as major - like Half-Orcs can have a racial feat to make it easier to negotiate with Goblinoids - but it's a +1, so like, one point of CHA mod or whatever on another PC and you might as well not have the Feat at all.

This feels really off to me, but is there perhaps some way in which a +1 bonus is more important in PF2E than, say, 5E? From the system it looks like the opposite is true, like +1 is less important than in 5E, because PF2E doesn't appear to use a "bounded accuracy" model.

And in combat they seem to bring back my old bugbear, Iterative Attacks, and the ability to make more attacks but at a penalty, both of which seem like they add a lot of math, but don't actually make the game play any better and indeed may actively make it less fun. I understand there's an element of sacred cow here, but how does it work out in practice? Bear in mind, I thought it worked very badly in 3E/PF1, so if it's "about the same" as that, I'm a little concerned lol!

Also, are there any good resources for getting started with PF2E (not like, getting started with RPGs, just PF2E specifically), like particularly those reminding me of key differences between 3E/PF1, 5E, and PF2 in terms of rules that might get overlooked or misremembered?

I know this might sound negative, but there's a lot I like about PF2E (like how the races/classes/backgrounds/stats are handled) but I'm trying to assess whether the whole thing would be a net positive for our group.

 

[kenada]

This feels really off to me, but is there perhaps some way in which a +1 bonus is more important in PF2E than, say, 5E? From the system it looks like the opposite is true, like +1 is less important than in 5E, because PF2E doesn't appear to use a "bounded accuracy" model.

A +1 is more impactful in PF2 compared to 5e because it also boosts your chance of critically succeeding, which almost everything can do. Otherwise, I agree that all the conditional modifiers are a bit annoying.

And in combat they seem to bring back my old bugbear, Iterative Attacks, and the ability to make more attacks but at a penalty, both of which seem like they add a lot of math, but don't actually make the game play any better and indeed may actively make it less fun. I understand there's an element of sacred cow here, but how does it work out in practice? Bear in mind, I thought it worked very badly in 3E/PF1, so if it's "about the same" as that, I'm a little concerned lol!

Multi-Attack Penalty is meant to discourage players from just standing around and attacking. My players tended to do that anyway, but that’s the idea. You should want to be doing other, more effective things with your actions than fishing for a crit on your third attack (unless your class is designed around that like the flurry ranger).

 

[payn]

So I realized I actually have PF2E and a fair bit of material for it via Humble Bundle and my brother, and honestly, I'm a little bored of 5E, but don't want to go for a drastically less crunchy system like Dungeon World at the moment. Also I've heard good things about the monsters, as compared to 5E.

I've started reading through PF2E, and there are a couple of things I'm not really liking, but maybe I'm not getting. Particularly the "bitty"-ness of the bonuses and so on. Huge numbers of things at lower levels seem to give a +1 bonus to a skill check under specific circumstances. Now, unless I'm misunderstanding severely, that's a pretty tiny bonus. Making it circumstantial means it needs to be evaluated as to when it applies every single time (rather than being, say, a +1 to Diplomacy, it'll be a +1 to Diplomacy in X situation), which means wasting time for a tiny bonus. And often these are things that the text represents as major - like Half-Orcs can have a racial feat to make it easier to negotiate with Goblinoids - but it's a +1, so like, one point of CHA mod or whatever on another PC and you might as well not have the Feat at all.

A +1 in PF2 is actually a pretty big deal. The math is so tight that they really add up compared to 5E and especially 3E. The crit system also relies on +or- 10 to the target DC so not only are your chances of success really going up, your chances of a critical go along with it.

This feels really off to me, but is there perhaps some way in which a +1 bonus is more important in PF2E than, say, 5E? From the system it looks like the opposite is true, like +1 is less important than in 5E, because PF2E doesn't appear to use a "bounded accuracy" model.

The thing is, PF2 does use a bounded accuracy system, just a very different way than 5E. At level 1 each character and NPC has an expected range of abilities and chances of success and crit. As you level the challenges and encounters you can actually face also go up in the same expected numbers (the treadmill theory). Where the difference really lies in what you leave behind. At level 5 you really mop the floor with level 1s and so forth because not only do you hit easier, you also crit much easier.

And in combat they seem to bring back my old bugbear, Iterative Attacks, and the ability to make more attacks but at a penalty, both of which seem like they add a lot of math, but don't actually make the game play any better and indeed may actively make it less fun. I understand there's an element of sacred cow here, but how does it work out in practice? Bear in mind, I thought it worked very badly in 3E/PF1, so if it's "about the same" as that, I'm a little concerned lol!

The thing is, at level 1 you have the same iterative attacks at the same penalties as level 20. You just add level and any relevant mods. It becomes pretty easy to follow and update as the math doesnt change often, nor do you add more iterative attacks enough to be a headache like 3E/PF1. Also, VTT like Foundry can do all the math for you.

Another thing to note is that you can often use your 3 actions to do other things than just stand there and attack. Demoralize, cast limited spells, move/attack/move, etc.. In fact, its often a poor choice to end a turn next to an enemy.

Also, are there any good resources for getting started with PF2E (not like, getting started with RPGs, just PF2E specifically), like particularly those reminding me of key differences between 3E/PF1, 5E, and PF2 in terms of rules that might get overlooked or misremembered?

I know this might sound negative, but there's a lot I like about PF2E (like how the races/classes/backgrounds/stats are handled) but I'm trying to assess whether the whole thing would be a net positive for our group.

There is so much available online for free for PF2 that it doesn't hurt to give it an honest try. Archive of Nethys is basically an SRD to give you quick reference for rules. The beginners box can help you dip your toes in first, but I have a feeling you are experienced enough to just jump in.

The hardest thing for me to grasp in PF2 is the way they bound accuracy I mentioned above. I feel like the band of possible encounters are too tight. Now a reliable CR might be seen as a feature by many, for me its too predictable. I do like my PCs being able to punch above their weight via strategy, which PF2 leans much more into tactical combat of expected ranges. So, much of that is just a preference. There is a variant that removes the +1/lvl and the band opens up a little bit, but is still pretty tight with the way the math works.

The other rub is silo'd chargen and multiclassing. It's much closer to 4E than 3E/PF1. Each class has 2-3 paths that dont have a ton of variety. Multiclassing is like the hybrid method 4E uses, so its more like getting one class thing to add your main class. One way to expand this a bit is to offer the "free archetype" variant. This allows characters to branch out a little more with a background system. Gives characters more options int heir tool kit without powering them up.

Good luck, I think you will have some growing pains but its a pretty well designed system overall.

 

[JmanTheDM]

like others above, a +1 is a deceptively big deal. in PF2, Critical hits and misses are +/-10 from a target number and are baked into the system with a very high %'age of rolls describing effects based on crits. each +1 = 5% improvement, thus, with a +1 you are:

• 5% less likely to crit miss
• 5% more likely to turn a miss into a hit
• 5% more likely to turn a hit into a critical hit.

this then is a significantly bigger "advantage" - because it now impacts 3 different resolutions, than just simply adding +1 ala 5e where the effect is binary - either you hit or you miss. its worth noting that in pf2, a natural "1" or "20" is not, by definition a "critical", it instead shifts the results by one degree. typically, this means the same thing as a critical hit, but there are circumstances where a 1 or 20 is not automatically a crit... if that makes sense


Cheers,

J

 

[TwoSix]

The other rub is silo'd chargen and multiclassing. It's much closer to 4E than 3E/PF1. Each class has 2-3 paths that dont have a ton of variety. Multiclassing is like the hybrid method 4E uses, so its more like getting one class thing to add your main class. One way to expand this a bit is to offer the "free archetype" variant. This allows characters to branch out a little more with a background system. Gives characters more options int heir tool kit without powering them up.

I haven't gotten to play PF2, just done a fair amount of reading. But it does seem like the "free archetype" variant is prevalent enough to be sort of like Feats in 5e; it's a variant that's pretty much the baseline for the majority of groups.

 

[payn]

I haven't gotten to play PF2, just done a fair amount of reading. But it does seem like the "free archetype" variant is prevalent enough to be sort of like Feats in 5e; it's a variant that's pretty much the baseline for the majority of groups.

It's very popular among PF2 fans. The folks who dont like it or are suspect of it, do so because they think it may imbalance things in the PCs favor. I dont know all the combos possible with it so there could be some shenanigans, but they should be easy to spot and limited due to how silo'd and tight PF2 system is.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

• 5% less likely to crit miss
• 5% more likely to turn a miss into a hit
• 5% more likely to turn a hit into a critical hit.

Ok thank you! All three of you explained this pretty well.

And it does make sense. With 5E, literally all it's doing is the middle one - but here you've got the critical interaction in both directions so it is more significant. I do wish fewer of them were circumstantial as 5E really reminded me how much time we used to spend in 3E and 4E assessing circumstantial bonuses, but at least the value itself makes sense.

I had actually read that rule but not having put it into practice it wasn't part of my mind-set.

The hardest thing for me to grasp in PF2 is the way they bound accuracy I mentioned above. I feel like the band of possible encounters are too tight. Now a reliable CR might be seen as a feature by many, for me its too predictable.

So I get the objection, but that's actually the sort of thing I like, personally, so it might be worth a shot for that alone. I take it encounters are no harder to prepare than 5E?

There is so much available online for free for PF2 that it doesn't hurt to give it an honest try. Archive of Nethys is basically an SRD to give you quick reference for rules. The beginners box can help you dip your toes in first, but I have a feeling you are experienced enough to just jump in.

I've got the core rulebook, I meant more like, is there a 5E to PF2E "cheat sheet" or something? Like for onboarding experienced RPGers who just haven't played PF2E yet - I'll have a look online.

 

[payn]

So I get the objection, but that's actually the sort of thing I like, personally, so it might be worth a shot for that alone. I take it encounters are no harder to prepare than 5E?

The big thing to pay attention to is the challenge rating when making content or using published stuff. Unlike previous editions, I find the CR to be very accurate in PF2.

The below is from the PF2 SRD. Severe/extreme encounters are in the +3-4 party level range are very difficult. These make excellent solo encounters and boss fights, but should be used sparingly, in my opinion. The reason for that is the PCs will have very low chance of scoring a critical and many of their abilities will be sidelined. These fights force teamwork and are challenging but can make the PCs seem weak.

Trivial-threat encounters are so easy that the characters have essentially no chance of losing; they shouldn’t even need to spend significant resources unless they are particularly wasteful. These encounters work best as warm-ups, palate cleansers, or reminders of how awesome the characters are. A trivial-threat encounter can still be fun to play, so don’t ignore them just because of the lack of threat.

Low-threat encounters present a veneer of difficulty and typically use some of the party’s resources. However, it would be rare or the result of very poor tactics for the entire party to be seriously threatened.

Moderate-threat encounters are a serious challenge to the characters, though unlikely to overpower them completely. Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting.

Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat. These encounters are most appropriate for important moments in your story, such as confronting a final boss. Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open.

Extreme-threat encounters are so dangerous that they are likely to be an even match for the characters, particularly if the characters are low on resources. This makes them too challenging for most uses. An extreme threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out, for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign, or for a group of veteran players using advanced tactics and teamwork.

Healing/rest is another aspect that is a bit different in PF2. You still have the cleric/druid/bard dynamic, but any character can take a medicine or healer feat. Fights expect players at full health in PF2 and the mini game around healing can be a major headache. Its not uncommon for players asking how many 10 min breaks they can take. I tend to just handwave it if the players can rest for 10-30 min without worry, they just heal up (assuming they have the spells and abilities to do so).

 

[JThursby]

This doesn't sound negative at all, I had the same skepticism of the game's changes during it's playtest. Now it's my game of choice, I run it every week. I'll address the points you brought up, then share my experience with running the game in a practical sense.

Small Bonuses - Welcome to Crit Town
In the game's encounter building rules you'll notice that it treats two monsters of level X as worth half the xp and threat as one monster of X+2. What does the monster that's two levels higher have that makes it literally twice as threatening? It has slightly more hp and might deal more damage, but it also has +2 to it's AC, Saves, DCs, Attack rolls, etc. So a +2 across the board is roughly considered to be doubling the effectiveness of a creature. That should give you an idea of how impactful these numerical bonuses are.
This is due to the 4 degrees of success system. All checks can get a critical failure or critical success with either nat1/nat20 result on the die or the result of the check being 10 bellow/10 above the DC. While you might be used to +1's being a 5% increase in accuracy, in this system if you're already good at something each +1 is adding critical results into the mix, which are generally 10% better or more. This even applies to skill checks and saving throws, which can have dramatic effects on critical results.

Iterative Attacks - Incentivizing Better Turns
The multi attack penalty (MAP) exists to prevent the game from turning into a slap fight. If you are looking to do weapon attacks, you have to do one of two things: find a way to conquer the MAP in your feats and class kit, or find something better to do with your actions that gives you more value than a very inaccurate attack.
This applies to enemies as well. The days of sack-of-hp slapstick enemies are over. Any enemy worth killing has something to do to give it an advantage in a fight that the PCs have to account for. Take the humble Warg. It has a reaction that lets it retaliate for attacking it's allies, it has the Grab ability on it's jaws attack which lets it spend 1 action after hitting with the attack to grapple it's victim automatically, and it has Swallow Whole, which lets it attempt to gulp down a creature within it's size limit (in this case Small). This level 2 enemy already comes with a small suite of abilities that make it a menace to low level parties. If it start's it's turn next to a player, instead of making 3 attacks you can expect it to attack, grab, and then swallow whole. Smart players will realize they can keep their distance to not be swallowed in the same turn as being grabbed because it only has 3 actions to spend. Having this kind of threat is what gives PCs a memorable time: enemies that spam attack after attack will not be remembered, the ones that deploy disruptive and dramatic abilities will be burned into their memory.

Resources - Archives of Nethys
All of the rules content of the game, without exception, is posted for free on Archives of Nethys. It's the official digital rules compendium for the game, and it has everything you could want. It's essentially D&D beyond without a character sheet, except free. If you want a character sheet there's Pathbuilder which is mostly free but has a paid version that allows exporting or something. For playing online there's the ludicrously expansive implementation of the game on Foundry Virtual Tabletop.

My Experience
This all sounds pretty alright on it's own without the context of actual play. Having run the game a bunch, it works out better than it sounds. I run the game in 3 hour sessions and each one averages 5 combats with lots of room for exploration or roleplaying, depending on the adventure. I run it on Foundry, and the pace of combat is incredibly brisk. Turns typically take a minute or less per player because the system has a way to automatically compare roll results against DCs, letting the player simply declare what they're gonna do, roll it, and have a resolution automatically presented. Every single spell, item, feat, ability in the game is in Foundry, so the speed of information retrieval is almost instantaneous. Very little bogs us down, the only thing that will do it sometimes is waiting a minute to load a new area for every player. From everything I had read from the game, speed of play this insanely fast is not something I was expecting. For comparison, I run 5e for a local game store and in the same span of time we're lucky to do 2 combats per session. I am struggling to go back to 5e, I have become accustom to PF2e's new normal of game speed.

 

[payn]

My Experience
This all sounds pretty alright on it's own without the context of actual play. Having run the game a bunch, it works out better than it sounds. I run the game in 3 hour sessions and each one averages 5 combats with lots of room for exploration or roleplaying, depending on the adventure. I run it on Foundry, and the pace of combat is incredibly brisk. Turns typically take a minute or less per player because the system has a way to automatically compare roll results against DCs, letting the player simply declare what they're gonna do, roll it, and have a resolution automatically presented. Every single spell, item, feat, ability in the game is in Foundry, so the speed of information retrieval is almost instantaneous. Very little bogs us down, the only thing that will do it sometimes is waiting a minute to load a new area for every player. From everything I had read from the game, speed of play this insanely fast is not something I was expecting. For comparison, I run 5e for a local game store and in the same span of time we're lucky to do 2 combats per session. I am struggling to go back to 5e, I have become accustom to PF2e's new normal of game speed.

Just thought I would chime in here on JThursby's experience. The one big slow down in my time with PF2 was learning conditions. They typically just give a -x penalty depending on severity of level inflicted. So, its much easier than in PF1 when things impacted attribute scores. However, they can be a steep learning curve when diving into PF2 with how numerous they are. For GM prep I would pay particular attention to enemies that impose conditions.

Another bonus of Foundry VTT is that the module has a spot to simply click on character sheets to do all the math for you.