It depends. I skipped 3e, but in 4e and 5e the guidelines work for a particular group. For instance in 5e, the encounter guidelines worked just fine one of my groups, but not the other. There is just a lot of variability in player groups in 5e. PF2e has less divergence between groups so the encounter guidelines are overall more effective.That is true yeah, in all other system that I've seen use it, it doesn't actually match the "difficulty" level it claims to match.
It depends. I skipped 3e, but in 4e and 5e the guidelines work for a particular group. For instance in 5e, the encounter guidelines worked just fine one of my groups, but not the other. There is just a lot of variability in player groups in 5e. PF2e has less divergence between groups so the encounter guidelines are overall more effective.
Sorry, I'm not following you. 3e, PF1, 4e, & PF2 didn't/don't have the philosophy that low level enemies are continual dangerous.Eeeh, its mostly the... Well D&D 5e still uses the logic "If there is 20 of same low level enemies, its dangerous!" without taking in account "enemy with 4 hp, 20 feet speed, no ranged attacks and weakness to fire will all die from few fire ball even if there are hundreds of them."
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. Your writing is unclear to me. What is your point?Like no matter what, in most situation having hundreds of trash mobs aren't dangerous even if in theory they could kill pcs if they get chance to attack, even with bounded accuracy.
Sorry, I'm not following you. 3e, PF1, 4e, & PF2 didn't/don't have the philosophy that low level enemies are continual dangerous.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. Your writing is unclear to me. What is your point?
(snip) There are character creation apps for modern devices. (Unlike the Silverlight character creator.) (snip)
OK, I get what your saying. However, my point was that the math does work. It works just fine for one of my groups, but as I noted previously not the other. The math works for a certain set of assumptions and play styles. But it is not broad or robust enough to accommodate the many different groups and play styles available in 5e. Though all they need to correct this is a few paragraphs, maybe a page, detailing how to adjust the guidelines base on your group (for 5e at least).What I'm referring is the formula from Dungeon Master's Guide where encounter difficulty is determined by total exp of the encounter, but if there are multiple enemies then the exp amount for sake of difficulty is multiplied. So if there are 15 or more monsters, you multiply total exp of those 15 enemies by 4. So in theory twig blight, a CR 1/8 enemy, would be 25 * 15 * 4 xp so 1500 xp which would be deadly encounter for 3 4th level characters... But in practice though, twig blights are slow and easy to avoid so uh.... Yeah.
Thats what I meant, even if you have hundreds of them, if pcs are high enough level they are really easy to defeat before they ever get in range of attacking pcs.
Same way, Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder has option of "If you want to simple encounter cr without counting exp budget, you can just have multiple of same CR creature and use this table to determine cr". Table where 16 creatures is "creature's cr plus 8" which in case of stuff like... Well 16 level 1 goblins aren't really "moderate" challenge to level 8 party anymore.
Or if you want to use full encouter building rules, then by raw, if you have enough mites to give 2,457,600 xp to each of 4 party members, it would be CR 30 encounter. Even though at high enough levels, no amount of mites is going to kill players even if they get lucky with few nat 20s.
Sorry if that still doesn't make sense? I'm not native speaker, but I really should practice my english grammar. It has kinda gotten rusty since I spend too much time in chats But what I'm trying to say "by RAW, the encounter building math in D&D 5e, Pathfinder 1e and Starfinder are kinda nonsensical since they assume that enough large number of trivial difficulty creatures is enough to make CR 8 encounter as if the difficulty was same as single CR 8 creature."
Paizo asked a dev who worked extensively on 4th edition D&D to help design 2nd edition Pathfinder and liked his contributions so much they put him in overall charge of the edition. PF2e is much better about "protecting players from themselves" in much the same way 4th edition D&D did, for example by eliminating complexities like free-form multiclassing and ensuring the choices offered by various classes (say, feat lists) are carefully curated to avoid overwhelming the player. PF2e is NOT by any stretch of the imagination identical to 4th edition D&D but it can meaningfully be described as a 3e/4e hybrid.Can anyone confirm/deny this? If correct, can folks give some kind of idea how PF2e is like D&D 4e?
Logan was not brought on for Pathfinder Second Edition. He left Wizards of the Coast in 2010 and did freelance for both them and Paizo until 2012. Since 2012 he has been with Paizo full time.
Stephen Radney-MacFarland was with Paizo from 2010 until shortly after the release of Pathfinder 2's Core Rulebook.
Two key members of Pathfinder Second Edition's design team did development and design work for Fourth Edition, but they were not key decision makers. Logan did become more involved in supplemental products until he left. They had both been working for Paizo for far longer than they worked for Wizards when they started working on Pathfinder Second Edition.
That does not mean that they were not influenced by Fourth Edition when designing Pathfinder Second Edition. There are some definite similarities in design language and rules technology, but I think they are put to some very different uses.
So little, in fact, I would say it's more of a bug than a feature. YMMV.
Note: this is a theoretical construct created to make an extreme argument.Eeeh, its mostly the... Well D&D 5e still uses the logic "If there is 20 of same low level enemies, its dangerous!" without taking in account "enemy with 4 hp, 20 feet speed, no ranged attacks and weakness to fire will all die from few fire ball even if there are hundreds of them."
There are already more player options in PF2e than 5e, yet 5e has a lot more group divergence. It has to do with the tight math of PF2e vs 5e, not the number of options. This can be a good thing or a bad thing depending on your perspective.I think its mostly because Advanced Player's Guide isn't released yet. There REALLY isn't lot of content for each class yet. Its kinda same situation as comparing Pathfinder 1e with only the core book and comparing it post 1e Advanced Player's Guide.