Pathfinder 2E Play report (Extinction Curse spoilers)

[Celtavian]

Yeah, well, my point @Celtavian was that I would differentiate my critique if I were you. Some of your points relate to the systems, others to the adventure. Conflating the two does noone any favors

Especially when you say you find 5E easy/boring as a response to Dave stating he has no problems challenging his players.

You might be both right. Yes, most (all?) adventures become child's play IMO at higher levels (when the players spend time minmaxing all the toys given to them, that 5E doesn't give to the monsters). No, I'm still easily capable of TPK:ing even the most blinged out party, regardless of edition, options, or variants.

At the same time, yes, I've found PF2 fiendishly difficult at times. But that relates to official adventures. If I created that encounter myself, I have only myself to blame.

I could obviously run a campaign where heroes never face monsters of their own level, let alone higher levels. That experience I'm sure would feel much more like default 5E. (Not identical, mind you. Just "more like")

Cheerio

tl;dr: I guess 5E adventures take an easy system and make it easier, while PF2 scenarios takes a hard system and make it harder. So if PF2 comes across as more challenging, whose "fault" is that?

I'm sure Dave2008 can challenge his players when we wants to. Heck, the PF1 system was way worse than 5E when it comes to weak monsters against the PCs. Main reason I found it more interesting is the monsters had a lot more options to build them including being full casters, summoning lots of helpful minions, and the like. 5E monsters were pretty simple and combat focused with an occasional spell here and there, but nothing you could really build a caster strategy around. I could spend the time to build them up, but with mechanics like concentration and limited magic the means to buff a monster against a PC group was very weak. In PF1 if I wanted to make a monster tough, you often supported it with a caster that buffed the enemy to the gills or used a lot of spells to manipulate the battlefield in useful and challenging ways. You could really only have one spell up per caster in 5E and enemy casters were even bigger weaklings in 5E than they are in PF2. In PF2 the incapacitation mechanic really hurts PF2 casters, in 5E the concentration mechanic took the air out of caster enemies big time. I've been playing these games for so long, if I don't have some complex options for strategizing I get pretty bored.

 

[dave2008]

Heck, the PF1 system was way worse than 5E when it comes to weak monsters against the PCs. Main reason I found it more interesting is the monsters had a lot more options to build them including being full casters, summoning lots of helpful minions, and the like.

Just wasn't sure you realized you can give PC classes to monsters in 5e. The very simple guidelines are in the MM. I don't do that, but it is a suggestion in the MM. It can make the monsters much stronger (try adding a class to a dragon per the guidelines and you will see what I mean).

Hmm. I just might post some dragons with classes in the 5e forum now.

 

[Celtavian]

Just wasn't sure you realized you can give PC classes to monsters in 5e. The very simple guidelines are in the MM. I don't do that, but it is a suggestion in the MM. It can make the monsters much stronger (try adding a class to a dragon per the guidelines and you will see what I mean).

Hmm. I just might post some dragons with classes in the 5e forum now.

Concentration along with other measures to reduce the power of magic made casters unable to challenge a group like they did in PF/3E. Magic was the huge fulcrum around which challenges were built as you gained levels. One well-built caster could support a group of enemies in a way that doesn't exist in 5E or PF2. It was a lot like a chess match of move-countermove in PF/3E with magic that you can't capture in the new weaker magic systems. It's not quite as bad in PF2 as 5E as the concentration mechanic is more limited than PF2 sustain mechanic, but even PF2 casters are weaker though can do some nasty damage to my surprise.

It was necessary to bring magic down to earth, but it has definitely changed the encounter building mechanics from PF1. You can't just build a powerful wizard who can buff himself with ten different defensive spells any longer as well as casting strong offense. Magic is more like a martial attack than a game changing, overwhelming force now.

 

[dave2008]

Concentration along with other measures to reduce the power of magic made casters unable to challenge a group like they did in PF/3E.

I skipped 3e / PF1 so I can't really compare my games to ones from that edition.

 

[Celtavian]

I skipped 3e / PF1 so I can't really compare my games to ones from that edition.

You are lucky. The feel of going from a PF1/3E caster to a 5E/PF2 caster would be like going from being Superman to Robin the Boy Wonder. PF1/3E casters eventually became god-like instruments of destruction that could practically run an adventure alone. Then again martials used to be able to deal enough damage to kill an ancient dragon in a 6 second round. PF2 and 5E greatly reduced the power to more manageable levels. As a player it's a big drop in power and that vicarious thrill of being a super-hero like wizard or magic user.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm sure Dave2008 can challenge his players when we wants to. Heck, the PF1 system was way worse than 5E when it comes to weak monsters against the PCs. Main reason I found it more interesting is the monsters had a lot more options to build them including being full casters, summoning lots of helpful minions, and the like. 5E monsters were pretty simple and combat focused with an occasional spell here and there, but nothing you could really build a caster strategy around. I could spend the time to build them up, but with mechanics like concentration and limited magic the means to buff a monster against a PC group was very weak. In PF1 if I wanted to make a monster tough, you often supported it with a caster that buffed the enemy to the gills or used a lot of spells to manipulate the battlefield in useful and challenging ways. You could really only have one spell up per caster in 5E and enemy casters were even bigger weaklings in 5E than they are in PF2. In PF2 the incapacitation mechanic really hurts PF2 casters, in 5E the concentration mechanic took the air out of caster enemies big time. I've been playing these games for so long, if I don't have some complex options for strategizing I get pretty bored.

But you see the point I was making?

 

[CapnZapp]

You are lucky. The feel of going from a PF1/3E caster to a 5E/PF2 caster would be like going from being Superman to Robin the Boy Wonder. PF1/3E casters eventually became god-like instruments of destruction that could practically run an adventure alone. Then again martials used to be able to deal enough damage to kill an ancient dragon in a 6 second round. PF2 and 5E greatly reduced the power to more manageable levels. As a player it's a big drop in power and that vicarious thrill of being a super-hero like wizard or magic user.

I would phrase the characterization a tad differently...

In 3E/PF1 there is no balance. It's the entitled munchkin's paradise. It is also the harried DM's worst nightmare.

In other to challenge the players you have zero shortcuts. You must spend hours building NPCs and perfecting their strategies, or you will get steamrolled by the players (4 brains vs 1 brain).

All for what? So the players can loot the monsters (killing the monsters you spent hours on in seconds) and become even more unbalancingly over-powerful. Thus begins a new cycle...


5E did miracles to the brand of D&D. (4E might or might not do some of these things too; since it threw out the baby with the bathwater I care little for it)

First and foremost, it freed DMs from having to play by the PC building rules. (PF2 wisely does this too) No longer is a monster required to have a specific class level or feat in order to pull of some ability. It needn't have any lootable items - it can simply have the stats it needs to do its job (challenging and amusing the players).

Secondly - and this is seldom appreciated enough - it revamps the casting rules in surprisingly insightful ways. 5E casting is seriously and meaningfully reined in compared to d20, but casters and spells still feel awesome (which I'm not sure I can say of PF2, though its early days), and of course, the less is said about the 4E AEDU nonsense the better. Every detail about the d20 spellcasting model has been examined. There are lots and lots of changes that most players probably aren't consciously aware of even after years of playing.

Sure 5E screams for an "advanced" module to make high-level play more interesting and complex, but that does not take away the most basic fact: I am convinced a lot of 5E's success comes from the incredible feat of pulling off both these accomplishments, all while retaining the "feel" of D&D: build choices and items are allowed to be awesome (sadly much unlike PF2 which offers some truly heinous item mechanics)

Of course, the biggest factor in 5E's success is its simplicity - with a lot of D&D crud getting swept under the rug; advantage, and the like. (Too much IMHO; such as checks on ranged damage, low-light vision, and advantage-for-everything.) I and Celtavian might be prepared for the niggly clutter of PF2, but I am convinced Paizo went the wrong way if they wanted a repeat of their huge PF1 success. In the post-5E era, such complexity simply doesn't cut it anymore.

PF2 comes across as an impressive game - if viewed as a post 4E-game. Sadly we live in a post-5E game (and did so during the entire PF2 development time, he added pointedly), and 5E is undoubtedly, unquestionably, indubitably even, the better game for the vast majority of players (me and Celt not included). In 2019 PF2 comes across as shockingly clueless about what makes a game successful - it seems to have learned none of the lessons 5E teach.

I remain convinced that Paizo could only have retained their greatness as a satellite around the 500 pound gorilla of D&D, that their strive for independence is just corporate ego nonsense, and that every single "high fantasy" publisher that moves outside D&Ds orbit ends up as an obscure little-known item of curio.

I also remain convinced that if Paizo instead published an "Advanced Manual (to the world's greatest roleplaying game)" that would not only have been great for me personally, but for Paizo Corp too. A rpg product that transforms 5E into a deeper, more complex game, with (much) more interesting monsters, with fixed subclasses and spells; yet retains full compatibility: meaning a player could still use a PHB class, even if it comes across as slighly less powerful (much like playing a Champion in a game with Battle Masters and Eldritch Knights) while a DM could still run a WotC adventure, possibly with monster stats switched out for the "advanced" versions.

Yes, I know Paizo feels burned by WotCs actions (Dragon magazine; 4E OGL) but the bitter truth is they can either play in WotC's garden or they can play with the ghosts (Castles & Crusades, 13th Age, Fantasy Age, HARP, Labyrinth Lord, Numenera, Runequest, Palladium, SoDM, Torchbearer, Tunnels & Trolls, 5 Torches Deep, or the literally other hundreds of D&D pretender games that some might play but none spend serious money on).

Now back to your regular Extinction Curse play report...

 

[Celtavian]

But you see the point I was making?

Yes. I see the point. Hopefully it is understood that this is my personal opinion on 5E and PF2 and how it meshes with my preferences. I think 5E is a good game that has revived the hobby for a generation of players. I see lots of young players getting into D&D again in even greater numbers than when I first got the little red basic book on Christmas when I was a youngster. That's good for everyone. More people playing Pen and Paper RPGs whether 5E or PF2 is a good thing for the overall hobby and the imagination of mankind.

 

[Celtavian]

I would phrase the characterization a tad differently...

In 3E/PF1 there is no balance. It's the entitled munchkin's paradise. It is also the harried DM's worst nightmare.

In other to challenge the players you have zero shortcuts. You must spend hours building NPCs and perfecting their strategies, or you will get steamrolled by the players (4 brains vs 1 brain).

All for what? So the players can loot the monsters (killing the monsters you spent hours on in seconds) and become even more unbalancingly over-powerful. Thus begins a new cycle...


5E did miracles to the brand of D&D. (4E might or might not do some of these things too; since it threw out the baby with the bathwater I care little for it)

First and foremost, it freed DMs from having to play by the PC building rules. (PF2 wisely does this too) No longer is a monster required to have a specific class level or feat in order to pull of some ability. It needn't have any lootable items - it can simply have the stats it needs to do its job (challenging and amusing the players).

Secondly - and this is seldom appreciated enough - it revamps the casting rules in surprisingly insightful ways. 5E casting is seriously and meaningfully reined in compared to d20, but casters and spells still feel awesome (which I'm not sure I can say of PF2, though its early days), and of course, the less is said about the 4E AEDU nonsense the better. Every detail about the d20 spellcasting model has been examined. There are lots and lots of changes that most players probably aren't consciously aware of even after years of playing.

Sure 5E screams for an "advanced" module to make high-level play more interesting and complex, but that does not take away the most basic fact: I am convinced a lot of 5E's success comes from the incredible feat of pulling off both these accomplishments, all while retaining the "feel" of D&D: build choices and items are allowed to be awesome (sadly much unlike PF2 which offers some truly heinous item mechanics)

Of course, the biggest factor in 5E's success is its simplicity - with a lot of D&D crud getting swept under the rug; advantage, and the like. (Too much IMHO; such as checks on ranged damage, low-light vision, and advantage-for-everything.) I and Celtavian might be prepared for the niggly clutter of PF2, but I am convinced Paizo went the wrong way if they wanted a repeat of their huge PF1 success. In the post-5E era, such complexity simply doesn't cut it anymore.

PF2 comes across as an impressive game - if viewed as a post 4E-game. Sadly we live in a post-5E game (and did so during the entire PF2 development time, he added pointedly), and 5E is undoubtedly, unquestionably, indubitably even, the better game for the vast majority of players (me and Celt not included). In 2019 PF2 comes across as shockingly clueless about what makes a game successful - it seems to have learned none of the lessons 5E teach.

I remain convinced that Paizo could only have retained their greatness as a satellite around the 500 pound gorilla of D&D, that their strive for independence is just corporate ego nonsense, and that every single "high fantasy" publisher that moves outside D&Ds orbit ends up as an obscure little-known item of curio.

I also remain convinced that if Paizo instead published an "Advanced Manual (to the world's greatest roleplaying game)" that would not only have been great for me personally, but for Paizo Corp too. A rpg product that transforms 5E into a deeper, more complex game, with (much) more interesting monsters, with fixed subclasses and spells; yet retains full compatibility: meaning a player could still use a PHB class, even if it comes across as slighly less powerful (much like playing a Champion in a game with Battle Masters and Eldritch Knights) while a DM could still run a WotC adventure, possibly with monster stats switched out for the "advanced" versions.

Yes, I know Paizo feels burned by WotCs actions (Dragon magazine; 4E OGL) but the bitter truth is they can either play in WotC's garden or they can play with the ghosts (Castles & Crusades, 13th Age, Fantasy Age, HARP, Labyrinth Lord, Numenera, Runequest, Palladium, SoDM, Torchbearer, Tunnels & Trolls, 5 Torches Deep, or the literally other hundreds of D&D pretender games that some might play but none spend serious money on).

Now back to your regular Extinction Curse play report...

Interesting view. We will see if it goes that way in time. It really comes down to how many old PF1 players buy into PF2 and whether 5E players eventually want more crunch in their game. If 5E never moves out of the very basic game they've made, then PF2 may well be there for those looking for a good mix of balance and crunch. What PF2 lacks is the brand name. D&D finally went mainstream with celebrities playing D&D and the wildly popular Critical Role really taking 5E to a much wider audience. It really helped build up 5E D&D in a way I've never seen. That is what PF2 needs is some popular group to take up their game and sell to a wider audience. The biggest coup of 5E is not their game, but their marketing. No one has ever marketed D&D as well as D&D marketed 5E. They got real lucky with Matt Mercer and his crew taking up 5E to make the game seem cool for everyone, guys and girls including mainstream celebrities.

I can't say as I agree about magic items. I felt 5E magic items were about on par with PF2. I'm not sure what 5E magic items do that you see as vastly better than PF2 magic items. I thought the Cloak and Boots of Elevenkind was very reminiscent of what a cloak and boots of elvenkind can do. The Cape of the Mountebank is quite cool. Ring of Lies is pretty neat and useful. Dragonslayer Shield fits what it is supposed to do. The magic items in the various APs seem cool. Have you read some of the magic items in Age of Ashes? They are quite nifty.

I like that they made crafting magic items very useful including some very nice alchemical items you can craft without being an alchemist like goldenmist elixir or the various poisons and healing elixirs.

Can you perhaps specify an exact magical item comparison so I can understand the difference between a 5E item and a PF2 item? So far my players like PF2 items. They like that they changed magic weapons from a flat bonus to damage and hit to the potency and striking runes. They like how holy items tend to do more damage against fiends. Really makes it seem like a holy sword. They also like you can cast a spell from a magic item and not have it take your concentration slot like 5E. There seems to be a lot more variability, strategy, and usefulness with PF2 items.

 

[CapnZapp]

First off, Celtavian, do you see (and agree) to the notion "PF2 is much much more cluttery than 5E"?

Assuming you're on board this, you should have no trouble agreeing with me when I say "PF2 will never be near as successful as 5E regardless of advertising".

In other words, it isn't the lack of branding or advertising dollars that is missing. What's missing is an accessible game. That is, if the competition were 4E or PF1, then yes, PF2 can be viewed as an improvement.

But the competition isn't 4E or PF1.

tl;dr: The success of 5E might involve luck or marketing, but let's not forget that all this is enabled by 5E shedding a lot of D&D crud accumulated since 1E. (And I'm saying this as someone who LIKES crud )