Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[Schmoe]

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.

Not really. Maybe compared to 5e, but not compared to many games. I'm running 3.5. If I put my party of 4th level PCs up against a single Hill Giant (CR 7, which is party level +3), it's almost assuredly a TPK. That doesn't mean I don't have Hill Giants in the game, it just means the party needs to know when to run.

Likewise, there are still DC 8 or DC 10 challenges in the game. While they are trivial or auto-success for very skilled characters, those aren't the only characters who might face them. And it gives the skilled characters the chance to feel rewarded for their choices. They still might run across two orcs as an encounter. Combat-wise it's trivial, but then the challenge is whether the party can eliminate them before they raise the alarm, or can they capture an orc and get information from one, or turn one to their side to help infiltrate. A trivial combat challenge opens up all sorts of role-playing options.

I admit I haven't played it yet, but I don't see how PF2 is any different in this regard.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

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

What will break if one does that?

 

[ikos]

In theory, nothing, but am curious as to how the critical success/failure mechanic of spells/skills will feel in play minus level. The PF GM guide will provide this as a variant.

 

[CapnZapp]

What will break if one does that?

Break?

If you don't add level to proficiency the overall experience (attacks, saves, AC and skills) behave much closer to 5E.

If you consider that a broken game, then yeah, my answer is - that.

If not, then I would instead say nothing breaks. Sure, some abilities become comparatively better, others worse, but nothing breaks (except the notion that a single L+4 creature is a fatal threat perhaps)

So... "No" with a side dish of "it's different"...?

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Won't the game be much more swingy? Also, I was thinking about how criticals and fumles work. And proficiences? Should the bonus for T/EM/L be perhaps halved?

 

[CapnZapp]

Won't the game be much more swingy? Also, I was thinking about how criticals and fumles work. And proficiences? Should the bonus for T/EM/L be perhaps halved?

Against higher level foes, the difference is your attack is no longer hopeless. (Your situation does remain hopeless, but we're looking at an action in isolation) And against lower level foes, they can now hope to hit you (with anything else than a 20; and that 20 might even yield a crit).

That low-level rabble go from "completely harmless" to "faintly threatening" isn't what I would call "swingy", but technically I guess that is what it is. Likewise, that a high-level boss could actually miss.

But assuming you still face mostly enemies of around your own level, no, I don't see "much more" swingy.

In general I would say that the current experience with L-4 to L-1 creatures would be extended to maybe L-8. I wouldn't say that experience would get any swingier. It would just mean that the level range of "meaningful" foes would roughly double.

This "doubling" isn't scientific analysis. It's based on that while a a low-level character could now crit a high-level monster, that still shaves of a very tiny amount of the total hp. So while we might say that from an attack vs defense analysis alone, the level range is greater than that, in practical play I expect things to work out much like in 5E where L-8 and L+8 are real limits anyway.

If anything PF2 monsters aren't just sad sacks of hit points. They have many more cool abilities up their sleeves, making level still account for more than CR in 5E...

---

The TEML bonus is +2 to +8. Hardly different from 5E, where it goes from +2 to +6.

 

[BryonD]

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.

Agreed. But....

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.

Now I assume when you say you think they have succeeded, I presume here that you are only speaking for yourself. Obviously that would be truth, but in the context here, the question was about wide appeal, not just case by case.

You described it as a narrow fanbase appeal. And I agree with you on both counts. They did not intend to do that, but I very much think that they did.

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.

I think the often cited comparison to both 4E and 5E are largely misguided. But there are certainly key points that can be recognized. IMO it is no coincidence that both WotC and Paizo followed 3X games with a strongly reactionary alternative which mechanically places the highest priority on the math and game-play balance.

I still like PF1E a lot. But I've never wavered from the idea that it was time to move on. For me personally, I've been playing some variation for 20 years now and I'm ready. But much more importantly, the market had CLEARLY moved on. So I think Paizo's #1 #2 and #3 goal was to improve their position in market share. PF1E was only going to continue a downward drift.

But I also think that they wanted to create "their own" game and try to escape the "other guy's design" albatross. And, I think that the squeaky wheel gets the grease. In this case that means that the people who were happily playing PF didn't have any reason to speak up often, but the well known issues were griped about forever by those who were bugged by them . And that comes back to the math is sacred principle that shined so bright in both 4E and PF2E.

To me, 2E doesn't feel mechanically satisfying. The math comes first and embracing the nature of the character is then shoe-horned in as well as the math will allow. Obviously a 2E wizard is a wizard and a ranger is a ranger. I'm not making an absolute statement. But everything is relative. And compared to other games that I can play (such as PF1E) the focus on keeping the math in line destroys the satisfaction of "being" the character.
In my current game the characters are L6. The lowest AC is 15. The highest is 24. And those values FEEL right within the story. And I could list a dozen other places where the mechanics are completely out of whack in terms of "balance". But everyone loves their character and they feel like they are facing challenges that engage each characters strength and weaknesses.

No matter how different a wizards fireball may be from the ranger's arrows, I believe that PF2E will feel more and more homogeneous as people continue to play with the tight mathematical skeleton.

And so I think it is already cut itself off from a lot of the fanbase and that will grow. Which isn't to say the least bit critical of anyone who loves it. If you are having a blast at the table then the conversation is over.
There are obviously still people who love 4E and it works perfect for them. It is all good.

But it does come back to "craft beer" when they wanted to appeal to everyone.

 

[Zaukrie]

I've never understood how the specific rules make one think the game isn't the same game, at it's core. I don't get edition wars, for example.

The mechanics may be different (better or worse for sure), but at it's core, you can play your character pretty much with the same fiction in any RPG (within the context of the gameworld you are playing in).

so, any argument that relies on "I don't feel the math and fiction don't line up" seems odd to me.

 

[GrahamWills]

Not really. Maybe compared to 5e, but not compared to many games. I'm running 3.5. If I put my party of 4th level PCs up against a single Hill Giant (CR 7, which is party level +3), it's almost assuredly a TPK. That doesn't mean I don't have Hill Giants in the game, it just means the party needs to know when to run.

Likewise, there are still DC 8 or DC 10 challenges in the game ...

I admit I haven't played it yet, but I don't see how PF2 is any different in this regard.

I think that it's a different style of play. One person considers PF2 poor for a sandbox game because they believe that players should have a chance of defeating any encounter in the sandbox and so a bound accuracy system is the only way to run good sandboxes. They therefore make the argument that any game that does not have bounded accuracy must be run as a series of carefully prepared appropriate-encounter levels.

On the other hand, some of us feel that a sandbox where some encounters are overwhelming for lower-level tables are a more fun environment. For us, bounded accuracy systems mean that players don't need to be as careful or clever -- they are not going to get TPK'd instantly and so can be more casual moving through a world. For us, that's less of a fun or realistic world. We'd prefer to play in a game where the sandbox has parts that will straight up kill you, and part of the fun is exploring the world to make sure you don't do that.

In the bounded accuracy sandbox, Frodo and Sam look at the Gate into Mordor, decide to sneak through it, and get some success before they have to run away. Bounded accuracy stops the might of Sauron just killing them. Frodo can put on the ring and have a chance of defying a demigod.

In a PF2 world, Frodo knows that if he is really, really lucky and puts the ring on, he might manage just a regular failure and so not be completely screwed. But he expects to critically fail all the way through the campaign. In the PF2 world, the GM describes the gate into Mordor, and Frodo and Sam know they will die if they try it and so need to be more careful (or at least consider if the challenge the NPC gollum is presenting to them as an alternative is actually going to be better. They clearly failed their Lore rolls and have no idea there's a giant spider demon waiting for them).

It's not a huge difference -- you can always make 5E challenges effectively out of tier and so restore the more reasonable sandbox feel, but it's working against the core assumptions. So for me, I prefer the PF2 style of sandbox. If you hate the thought of facing a level+6 spider-demon you have not a hope of killing, but at best can drive away while you run -- all because you failed your Lore check; then PF2 may not be for you. Instead 5E will ensure that you do have a hope of killing Shelob without needing a clever plan or alternate approach. Your choice as to how you prefer.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I've never understood how the specific rules make one think the game isn't the same game, at it's core. I don't get edition wars, for example.

The mechanics may be different (better or worse for sure), but at it's core, you can play your character pretty much with the same fiction in any RPG (within the context of the gameworld you are playing in).

so, any argument that relies on "I don't feel the math and fiction don't line up" seems odd to me.

The rules of the game reflect how the world works. In different worlds, the exact same actions can lead to wildly different results. It doesn't generate the same fiction.

As an example, a high-level fighter in PF2 world can gleefully engage with a hundred orcs, fairly confident that they'll emerge relatively unscathed. If a high-level fighter in 5E world tries to do that, they'll catch the business end of several dozen javelins, and die within a few minutes.

The decisions you make, as your character, are informed by the world that they live in. That's basic role-playing.