Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e

[Acolyte of Zothique]

It isn't a war to point out that different editions are better at different things. It just so happens that immediate playability is not the strong suit of 5E. It makes up for it by being much more-easily house ruled.

Don't take my statement for more than it is. I would never inflict 5E on anyone. I know, because someone wanted to learn D&D, and I couldn't bring myself to do it. The default rules are too indefensibly ridiculous.

That's not to say anyone else is incapable of playing it, if they were oblivious to its most egregious faults, or if their standards were low enough that they just didn't care.

It is warring when you use adversarial/inflammatory language like 'Inflict'; 'indefensibly ridiculous' and 'egrarious faults'. By using this language in the post above you have managed to contradict your opening statement within the same post. That is very... impressive?

Also, you are so completely wrong about the game not being immediately playable that I find that statement bordering on the hysterical. I am a veteran of 3.0 and 3.5 (not to mention AD&D2E) and I have been running 5e since 2015. My objective experience with 5e, not to mention every other 5e DM I know at the Meetups I attend, proves you to be wrong in generalising. You do not find 5e immediately playable. There's nothing wrong with that but that is your experience and does not call for you to attack 5e. Why not play up the virtues of PF2E instead? I have tried running PF1E; I do not find that game immediately playable but you don't see me attacking that game. Similarly, running 3.5 proved to be a major headache due to crunchy rules but I don't attack 3.5 either.

Let's just say we agree to disagree on 5e and leave it at that; you've made your subjective personally biased views on 5e more than well known.

 

[Nagol]

Hold on here.

What the PF2 designers have observed is that previous editions assumed you ended up with your +5 Plate Mail of Never-Polish, so that these editions effectively did have a AC progression.

By baking in level into AC, they just want to lessen the dependency on gear.

And by baking the same level into accuracy, they put the dependency right back in.

Most editions of D&D do effectively assume some improvement in AC but it only sort of tracks to level. The amount also varies dramatically by role. The beefy fighter in 1e s likely to go from AC4 at 1st level to AC -8 over 12-15 levels or about a point per level. The magic-user is likely to go from AC 8 to AC 2 or about half a point per level. In 3.X, the beefy fighter goes from AC 18 to AC 40 (more than a point per level) while the Wizard goes from AC 12 TO AC 27 (less than a point per level).

Note that the to-hit in both cases rises much more dramatically and quickly in both 1e and 3.X since a peer's portion of level plus magic bonuses plus improved characteristics rise faster than AC bonuses. The character becomes relatively easier to hit for peers, but much harder for non peers. So a Fighter becomes almost impossible to hit by a magic-user and a magic-user goes from being modestly hard to hit to trivial in both editions.

 

[CapnZapp]

And by baking the same level into accuracy, they put the dependency right back in.

I honestly do not know what you are complaining against, and/or what you want instead.

A game... where where Wizards hit Fighters as easily as they hit them?
A game... where there is no correlation between ability to avoid damage (=Armor Class) and experience?

Or what

 

[Nagol]

I honestly do not know what you are complaining against, and/or what you want instead.

A game... where where Wizards hit Fighters as easily as they hit them?
A game... where there is no correlation between ability to avoid damage (=Armor Class) and experience?

Or what confused

You quoted @ByronD thus:

Adding level to AC has no match in prior versions and flies completely in the face of the opening hand wave comment about "present in and versions of D&D-PF". The idea that "you should be able to land a blow" is not remotely a fact, but rather entirely one of taste. So if you don't share that taste, PF2E is telling you "too bad".

and then claimed

What the PF2 designers have observed is that previous editions assumed you ended up with your +5 Plate Mail of Never-Polish, so that these editions effectively did have a AC progression.

By baking in level into AC, they just want to lessen the dependency on gear.

I pointed out your premise that adding level to AC reduces reliance on gear is a negated because when opponents add level to accuracy AND must be close to your own level because of how the gameplay is designed. In effect, a term is being added to both sides of an equation and can be removed without impact.

I refuted your argument that the AC progression in previous games matched the current paradigm in effect if not mechanic. The old paradigm is "a combat-focused character hits equal opponents more reliably as they level in general and there is a wide range of combat weighting where less combat-intensive characters are hit both very reliably and must rely on other mechanisms as they own chance to hit falls rapidly against combat-heavy peers".

I would like a game where the ability to avoid being hit depends on the focus placed on not being hit provided by the training and predilection of the character. Similarly, a game where the focus on hitting depends on the training and predilection of the character and the focus on making pottery or crafting a sword or following a trail in the woods depends on the training and predilection of the character.

I do understand on the skills side that there are specific thresholds in addition to the raw score (effective training levels). But on the combat side there are none.

 

[Campbell]

@Nagol

Proficiency works the same way for everything in the game.

• If you are untrained you add nothing at all.
• If you are trained add level + 2
• If you are an expert add level + 4
• If you are a master add level +6
• If you are legendary add level +8

Each class has different progressions for proficiency at attacks, defenses, saves, and Perception. So at 5th level a wizard is trained in a relatively small number of inferior weapons while a fighter is a master in a weapon group and expert in all other weapons.

For skills the variance in Proficiency is based on the choices you make while leveling up. For everything else it is based on class features gained while leveling.

There are some significant deltas in combat skill embedded in the game. They tend to be more consistent across levels though so at 5th level these deltas tend to be bigger than they would in other games, but you do not reach a point where there is a 10 point spread. A fighter starts out better than everyone else at weapons and gains a little ground on some classes. A monk starts out better at avoiding blows than everyone else and remains consistently better than everyone, but the champion.

 

[Nagol]

@Nagol

Proficiency works the same way for everything in the game.

• If you are untrained you add nothing at all.
• If you are trained add level + 2
• If you are an expert add level + 4
• If you are a master add level +6
• If you are legendary add level +8

Each class has different progressions for proficiency at attacks, defenses, saves, and Perception. So at 5th level a wizard is trained in a relatively small number of inferior weapons while a fighter is a master in a weapon group and expert in all other weapons.

For skills the variance in Proficiency is based on the choices you make while leveling up. For everything else it is based on class features gained while leveling.

There are some significant deltas in combat skill embedded in the game. They tend to be more consistent across levels though so at 5th level these deltas tend to be bigger than they would in other games, but you do not reach a point where there is a 10 point spread. A fighter starts out better than everyone else at weapons and gains a little ground on some classes. A monk starts out better at avoiding blows than everyone else and remains consistently better than everyone, but the champion.

So a 9th level Wizard Fighter is as accurate with a trained weapon as a 5th level Fighter is with his mastered weapon group and is harder to hit (assuming equivalent worn armor). In other words, within 4 levels, a Wizard outstrips a Fighter in his specialty. Does a Fighter 4 levels higher outstrip a Wizard in his specialty too?

 

[CapnZapp]

I pointed out your premise that adding level to AC reduces reliance on gear is a negated because when opponents add level to accuracy AND must be close to your own level because of how the gameplay is designed. In effect, a term is being added to both sides of an equation and can be removed without impact.

If viewed in isolation, yes. But in comparison with the larger world, no.

Previously, gear was the chief contributor to why you were harder to hit at high level. To me, it is not hard to see that gear is an extra step you can skip by just adding to AC as you level up.

I refuted your argument that the AC progression in previous games matched the current paradigm in effect if not mechanic. The old paradigm is "a combat-focused character hits equal opponents more reliably as they level in general and there is a wide range of combat weighting where less combat-intensive characters are hit both very reliably and must rely on other mechanisms as they own chance to hit falls rapidly against combat-heavy peers".

The idea that a high level wizard can walk around with AC 10 even at level 20 where monsters (and, presumably, fighters) sport +40 to attacks is alien to both the game PF2 set out to "fix" (namely 3E) and Pathfinder 2 itself (if only because the crit mechanism doesn't work).

I don't see how my post is especially refuted...

I was saying that PF2 changed [AC bonus from level] to skip involving gear. I was not saying D&D won't work unless you have [AC bonus from level]. I have played 5E for many years - I already know you can play "proficiency without level" to use PF2 parlance.

I would like a game where the ability to avoid being hit depends on the focus placed on not being hit provided by the training and predilection of the character. Similarly, a game where the focus on hitting depends on the training and predilection of the character and the focus on making pottery or crafting a sword or following a trail in the woods depends on the training and predilection of the character.

You are certainly free to desire such a game.

 

[CapnZapp]

So a 9th level Wizard Fighter is as accurate with a trained weapon as a 5th level Fighter is with his mastered weapon group and is harder to hit (assuming equivalent worn armor). In other words, within 4 levels, a Wizard outstrips a Fighter in his specialty. Does a Fighter 4 levels higher outstrip a Wizard in his specialty too?

A level 9 Wizard is four levels higher than a level 5 Fighter. Since level is everything in this game, of course he's nearly equal to the Fighter at fighting.

(As long as they use a staff or dagger or whatever, at least.)

But know what? At level 9, having the fighting abilities of a level 5 fighter is dangerously weak.

Why? Because you're 9th level! Only a level 9 fighter has any business spending their rounds waving sticks around. The level 9 Wizard is much better off doing... something wizardly.

So I'm afraid your point is stronger in the white room of theory than at the PF2 playing table...


Z

PS. A fighter still don't know any spells, much less those of a level 5 Wizard.

But you do have the option to spend your feat choices on Dedication, PF2's version of multi-classing. This essentially gives you some Wizardy abilities without slowing down your core Fighter stats.

So the idea is certainly that martial characters can relatively cheaply pick up some magic. (Cheaper than slowing down their fighter level progression, that is).

 

[Zaukrie]

Coming from a disinterested-in-the-game perspective, thinking on it solely from a business point of view, it does seem a strange move: who is the audience? Not PF1 hardliners, not 5E players, not new players...

So many assumptions here. I'm a 5e player that is switching 5E is boring to me. You level and get nothing but HPs....and the MM monsters just stand there and swing until they die mostly. I don't know why people feel the need to speak with such certainty about other people and their interests.....

 

[Parmandur]

So many assumptions here. I'm a 5e player that is switching 5E is boring to me. You level and get nothing but HPs....and the MM monsters just stand there and swing until they die mostly. I don't know why people feel the need to speak with such certainty about other people and their interests.....

Alright, "most people who play 5E and are happy with it" then.