log in or register to remove this ad

 

PF2E PF2E like D&D 4e?


log in or register to remove this ad


dave2008

Legend
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.
 

MaskedGuy

Explorer
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.
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."

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.
 

dave2008

Legend
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."
Sorry, I'm not following you. 3e, PF1, 4e, & PF2 didn't/don't have the philosophy that low level enemies are continual dangerous.

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.
Again, I'm not sure what your point is. Your writing is unclear to me. What is your point?
 

I'm also a fan of 4e, but I also find it worth playing PF2 for several reasons....
It's currently supported. There are character creation apps for modern devices. (Unlike the Silverlight character creator.)
Combats are (so far) running quicker than in 4e.
It provides more character options and tactical crunch compared to 5e that it's a welcome change of pace.
Because of its use of the SRD and OGC, most of the rules content is available for free online.
Third party content is coming in.
Books aren't out of print.
 

MaskedGuy

Explorer
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?
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 :p 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."
 
Last edited:

Scrivener of Doom

Adventurer
Interesting thread. It certainly is answering some questions I had but didn't want to post.

(snip) There are character creation apps for modern devices. (Unlike the Silverlight character creator.) (snip)
The online tools are dead. The offline tools are thriving. I've been sending out 200+ links a year for about five years. The 4E Discord is also making sure they're available.
 

dave2008

Legend
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 :p 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."
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).
 

jsaving

Adventurer
Can anyone confirm/deny this? If correct, can folks give some kind of idea how PF2e is like D&D 4e?
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.

My main gaming group left D&D because we didn't like 4e and we weren't especially enthusiastic about the nods PF2e has made in that direction. But if you're a fan of 4e while still appreciating to some degree the editions that came before it, then PF2e might be a great fit for you.

Edit: Citations added.
 
Last edited:



MaskedGuy

Explorer
On sidenote, I kinda find idea of multiclassing being changed about "protecting players from bad builds" weird when its obviously more about balancing the game. Because multiclassing is one of things that makes any edition with it kinda impossible to balance because taking synergy and exponential power increase in account in the system is pretty impossible if you keep releasing new content :p It will always eventually lead to stuff like "i have 19 in one class and one level in class that gives me bonus that makes my main build much more powerful!" and other silly stuff.
 

jsaving

Adventurer
I wouldn't say it's "impossible" but you do have to design classes with multiclassing in mind and you specifically have to make sure you don't overly front-load their benefits. 5e does a somewhat better job with this than 3e, though admittedly that isn't a super-high bar to exceed. :)
 

Campbell

Relaxed Intensity
I will post a more substantive analysis of what I think the similarities and differences are later. For now I wanted to address the links in the design team with Fourth Edition.

Design Team : Rob Heinsoo, Andy Collins, James Wyatt.
Development Team: Andy Collins, Mike Mearls, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, Peter Schaefer, Stephen Schubert.
Additional Design and Development : Richard Baker, Greg Bilsland, Logan Bonner, Bart Carroll, Michele Carter, Jennifer Clarke Wilkes, Bruce R. Cordell, Jeremy Crawford, Jesse Decker, Michael Donais, Robert Gutschera, Gwendolyn F. M. Kestrel, Peter Lee, Julia Martin, Kim Mohan, David Noonan, Christopher Perkins, Matthew Sernett, Chris Sims, Ed Stark, Rodney Thompson, Rob Watkins, Steve Winter, Chris Youngs

Design Team : Logan Bonner, Jason Bulmahn, Stephen Radney-MacFarland, and Mark Seifter
Developers : Adam Daigle, Lyz Liddell, and Erik Mona

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.
 

MaskedGuy

Explorer
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.
Sooo yeah, I was right about that previous post being "Oh, there were couple person working on same project, so let's shame them because I didn't like the other project despite not having context of what exactly they did in the other project or for how long they had been working at paizo before the 2e"?

That said, Logan Bonner is in lot of interview videos(and paizo's twitch streams) so if you really are interested in their design philosophy you can find it out with research :p
 


MaskedGuy

Explorer
Much less.

So little, in fact, I would say it's more of a bug than a feature. YMMV.
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.
 

CapnZapp

Legend
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."
Note: this is a theoretical construct created to make an extreme argument.

I would say that in practice, you would very very rarely see more than twenty opponents, and they would easily have 20 hit points each, Speed 25 and a weak ranged attack.

Besides, Fireball isn't the answer to this kind of situation. Spirit Guardians is.
 

dave2008

Legend
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.
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.
 
Last edited:

Mythological Figures & Maleficent Monsters

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top