Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[teitan]

Personally I think it is very, very good and saying that as a 30 year D&D player. I think the 3 action economy is a game changer as is the critical system of ten over and ten under. I think character creation is simple for low levels, it's very life path, a logical flow of Ancestry, Background, Class.

I think P2 is going to be a slow burn hit. It seems designed that way, the tag line on the back of your book "Advance Your Game"? I'm going to theorize that Paizo is hoping that people will start looking for a richer experience than 5E provides to player and are setting themselves up as the AD&D to 5e's Basic D&D. In the short term it will look like a 900 lbs Gorilla and I don't think it will be the app killer that some people think PF1 was (it wasn't, it was usually second potatoes to 4e, only overtaking it during the 4e wind down into the playtest) but it will fill that niche that I think White Wolf was hoping the new Vampire would take. It's definitely not going to be a flavor of the month.

 

[CapnZapp]

I prefer a system where a flat brick wall has DC Z and always will be.

But Pathfinder is the wrong kind of game for that wish.

While it might be easy to place level 20 threats far away from low-level civilization, it isn't easy to explain how the heroes never face a threat a mere 3-5 levels higher.

And such a threat, yes even a single monster just three levels higher, can easily end up with the death of a player character.

What you need is "proficiency without level"; what 5E would call "bounded accuracy".

PF2 on the other hand is unapologetically a game where levels have a hysterical impact. Where the heroes ideally never face any threat more than four levels higher.

It is the opposite of the sandbox experience. It is the opposite of bounded accuracy.

Any threat or challenge with a flat DC will be impossible, impossible, then reasonable for a fleeting moment in the heroes' career, then trivial, trivial and trivial.

In a game where level has such a profound impact, you can't have flat DCs on brick walls, or the players can traverse castle walls as if they weren't there already by level 4-5 - no magic necessary.

You pretty much must start with easy rough walls that are easy to climb, and make them successively taller, smoother, and harder.

Or, in other words, use the PCs level to look up the DC.

Sure, you can throw in a trivial DC from time to time to make the players feel they have made progress. But the truth about tightly bound math games like 4E or PF2 is that they don't care about giving the players the feeling of having risen above the average. They do everything in their power to keep up the challenge. No matter how high attack bonuses the heroes have, the monsters AC always keep up.

This is why I love "grounded" games, and the "bounded accuracy" of 5E makes it more grounded than possibly any previous edition.

The choice is between a world where just a few heroes (and foes) have risen above the regular (low-level) world around them; or a game where the heroes live in a "bubble" where they just happen to always face monsters up to 4 levels below or above them.

4E was notorious for having "adventures" which consisted of nothing more than a series of combat encounters carefully balanced to always provide just the right amount of challenge. I have a different name for that: "treadmill".

You CAN recreate the feeling of one game in the other, but it IS harder when you're going against the grain, as it were. (Example: if a party of level 5 heroes face a level 15 threat in 5E, they might not stand a chance fighting it, but they might conceivably manage to escape; run away, hide or similar. In PF2 the same encounter is an assured death sentence: every attack is a crit, which likely means every attack downs one character; not to mention all the other aspects.)

Tldr do use flat DCs, but if you must use PF2, use proficiency without level.


PS. Obviously the wall example has its limits in a game with fly and teleport. Please don't respond as if I believe there should be a wall not even level 20 heroes would find trivial, because I don't. Replace "wall" with "dragon" if that helps.

 

[neostrider]

I ran the sandbox way, and players visiting areas above their level were strongly hinted at. The troll living in the nearby cave was always there from level 1, and I felt that increased the immersion of my games.

Breaking into a castle is something that happens during low level campaigns. The idea that a high level party suddenly encounters high level castle walls snaps me back to "so you just want to see one of us roll high."

The bubble effect is something that I've seen, but I deal with it in plot and world building. A 10th level party is teleporting wherever seems appropriate, so my recommendation is give them reasons to seek the appropriate challenges. The pf2 encourages changing the bubble into a world mutation that keeps all things around the players auto scaling difficulty.

By 20th level they should be plane hopping or artifact destroying. Please don't let it be a local evil king constantly scaling to APL+2. The defenses should be a longer more epic climb through a non magic zone, not the same castle wall sanded smoother.

 

[JFranklin3000]

But Pathfinder is the wrong kind of game for that wish.

While it might be easy to place level 20 threats far away from low-level civilization, it isn't easy to explain how the heroes never face a threat a mere 3-5 levels higher.

And such a threat, yes even a single monster just three levels higher, can easily end up with the death of a player character.

What you need is "proficiency without level"; what 5E would call "bounded accuracy".

PF2 on the other hand is unapologetically a game where levels have a hysterical impact. Where the heroes ideally never face any threat more than four levels higher.

It is the opposite of the sandbox experience. It is the opposite of bounded accuracy.

Any threat or challenge with a flat DC will be impossible, impossible, then reasonable for a fleeting moment in the heroes' career, then trivial, trivial and trivial.

In a game where level has such a profound impact, you can't have flat DCs on brick walls, or the players can traverse castle walls as if they weren't there already by level 4-5 - no magic necessary.

You pretty much must start with easy rough walls that are easy to climb, and make them successively taller, smoother, and harder.

Or, in other words, use the PCs level to look up the DC.

Sure, you can throw in a trivial DC from time to time to make the players feel they have made progress. But the truth about tightly bound math games like 4E or PF2 is that they don't care about giving the players the feeling of having risen above the average. They do everything in their power to keep up the challenge. No matter how high attack bonuses the heroes have, the monsters AC always keep up.

This is why I love "grounded" games, and the "bounded accuracy" of 5E makes it more grounded than possibly any previous edition.

The choice is between a world where just a few heroes (and foes) have risen above the regular (low-level) world around them; or a game where the heroes live in a "bubble" where they just happen to always face monsters up to 4 levels below or above them.

4E was notorious for having "adventures" which consisted of nothing more than a series of combat encounters carefully balanced to always provide just the right amount of challenge. I have a different name for that: "treadmill".

You CAN recreate the feeling of one game in the other, but it IS harder when you're going against the grain, as it were. (Example: if a party of level 5 heroes face a level 15 threat in 5E, they might not stand a chance fighting it, but they might conceivably manage to escape; run away, hide or similar. In PF2 the same encounter is an assured death sentence: every attack is a crit, which likely means every attack downs one character; not to mention all the other aspects.)

Tldr do use flat DCs, but if you must use PF2, use proficiency without level.


PS. Obviously the wall example has its limits in a game with fly and teleport. Please don't respond as if I believe there should be a wall not even level 20 heroes would find trivial, because I don't. Replace "wall" with "dragon" if that helps.

It does work this way, and you both need to look at that table again it isn't the party level. It is the level of the challenge. See pg 503 the last paragraph in column one (last sentence).

"Or you might decide that the 15th-level villain who created the dungeon crafted the wall, and use the 15th-Level DC of 34."

 

[Rhianni32]

I agree. I remain utterly clueless as to why Paizo completely missed the writing on the wall here (that 5E represents the way most people want to play) and created such a throw-back game to the pre-5E era.

Is 5ed the way people want to play (as in they have tried multiple rulesets and have decided 5ed is their preferred game) or is it that via marketing efforts and Critical Role, 5ed is the first and only ruleset for many if not a majority of 5ed players these days and they just haven't felt a need to go try something else.

5ed is the Budweiser of rulesets. it doesn't really offend the taste buds, its made for mass market appeal, for many its the first exposure one gets, and it gets the job done.
But if you are looking for something specific in then it doesn't fully satisfy. Whereas a craft beer will have a narrow fanbase but really can nail successfully what it is trying to do.

That was one of their stated goals in writing 5ed, to stop the edition wars and appeal to everyone. The only way they could, and did, do that is to have it rules light and you fill in what you want where you want.

If Paizo wanted to make a 5ed clone they would have. Why didn't they? Probably for the same reason your local town microbrewery doesn't make a rice based American pale lager. PF1 didn't come out until 4ed. Its not like Paizo ever went head to head with WotC. So likewise I would not expect them to make a 5ed clone and try to compete.

What I am clueless on is why you keep talking over and over and over again like Pazio is stupid and didn't see the success of 5ed or like they live in a bubble and are oblivious to their industry.

 

[CapnZapp]

Breaking into a castle is something that happens during low level campaigns. The idea that a high level party suddenly encounters high level castle walls snaps me back to "so you just want to see one of us roll high."

Since I anticipated this kind of reply, I assume you just missed the part where I suggest replacing "wall" with "dragon".

In other words, my point still stands, even if the walls don't.

 

[kenada]

Many things I as GM LOVE my players gripe about; they still seem obsessed with playing it, which is great, but describe the game as "GM friendly, player neutral," which I believe means "The game makes your life easier and more interesting, but seems to shackle us a lot in ways that chafe."

That’s an interesting observation. I don’t think my players have the same complaints, but they’ve made a few comments that make me think something similar now: that the game is more to my taste than theirs (even though they say they want things like crunchy customization and tactical combat).

The book has a simple method where a gm thinks a level of training is recommended to succeed (table 10-4) or a DC by level of challenge (10-5), which I suspect 95% of GMs will follow flatly and present a level X party with Level X skill challenges. My society Gm did.

That sucks, especially if that becomes a trend. It’s like we can’t have nice things.

I prefer a system where a flat brick wall has DC Z and always will be. The GM/ adventure wouldn't even need to think about training, character level, or adventure level. If a character improvised and decides to climb a nearby tree, the complexity of the tree shouldn't be based on the level of the adventure imo.

I agree. The way I look at the simple DC table is it’s just another take on the old skill ladder, except conceptualized around who would have average success at a task rather than easy, medium, hard, etc. Of course, there’s nothing stopping people from doing the same thing with the simple DC table they purportedly do with the by-level table (tie it to PC proficiency).

 

[Eric V]

5ed is the Budweiser of rulesets. it doesn't really offend the taste buds, its made for mass market appeal, for many its the first exposure one gets, and it gets the job done.
But if you are looking for something specific in then it doesn't fully satisfy. Whereas a craft beer will have a narrow fanbase but really can nail successfully what it is trying to do.

I just really like how you put this. Well done.

 

[BryonD]

will have a narrow fanbase but really can nail successfully what it is trying to do.

It seems you are saying that PF2E was designed with intent to target a "narrow" portion of the fanbase, thus actively, knowingly, and deliberately not supporting the fanbase outside of that narrow band.

If you are not saying this, would you please clarify.

FWIW, I don't for a second think they wanted to exclude anyone.

 

[Rhianni32]

It seems you are saying that PF2E was designed with intent to target a "narrow" portion of the fanbase, thus actively, knowingly, and deliberately not supporting the fanbase outside of that narrow band.

If you are not saying this, would you please clarify.

FWIW, I don't for a second think they wanted to exclude anyone.

1: Thank you for asking for clarification vs assuming and jumping on me.

2: Clarification. It would be silly for Paizo to purposefully have a goal to exclude people. They are a business after all.

Paizo's goal (imo I have no evidence from them) was to make a good ruleset. If you really like it you are in luck cause they have a ton of splat books. Nothing they have done was with the goal of ignoring people. I think they have succeeded and put out a good product.

WotC's Mearls I recall specifically said they wanted to appeal to lovers of all editions and to end the edition wars. That was their goal and then they came up with rules afterwards. I think they succeeded and put out a good product but its no longer what I personally want.