Pathfinder 2E Rate Pathfinder 2E

[CapnZapp]

You often say PF2e monsters have the tricks and abilities to handle what the PCs throw at them. What would those be?

Well, I can't deconstruct a thousand-page rules engine here and now... so where do I start? The action economy means a monster can potentially score three hits during its turn. Since damage is significant compared to hit points, this makes a non-trivial monsters a threat. This gives players pause. Players respecting the monsters is a big plus.

And that's just a single thing. Maybe easier to say what PF2 doesn't have: in 5E the Player's Handbook liberally hands out abilities (feats, spells, ...) that monsters can only dream about having. That creates a very unfortunate atmosphere where the players' characters are just straight up superior to everybody else - a most unhealthy notion in a game already so plagued with superhero complex.

Many 5E monster abilities are in turn stunted or strangled. The basic action economy for one thing: very few monsters can do their interesting thing (movement, debuffing, ...) in the same round they do their effective thing (multiattack). So many times I've seen my monsters die before they got to show off their distinctive traits simply because the one round they got to act, I opted to have them actually do some damage instead of just showing off with no impact. In the end, I had to relax these senseless limitations just to reinject some fun into the monsters. (Just one example: Of course a high-level monster should be able to teleport and attack - high-level heroes are built to take on such critters. If the monster can only do either, it's basically defanged)

This is not a problem in PF2. Monsters routinely have the same movement capabilities as most PCs - it isn't cheap to create a hero that can outrun monsters. Besides, the three actions mean that any creature that spends all of them on movement WILL reach its foe. And ranged damage is thankfully scaled back from 5E's insane levels. In short: kiting bruisers was trivial in 5E and I'm glad Paizo won't stand for it.

I'm sure there is much much more. You're right, this is not chiefly about what's in the stat block, it's in the system. Still, the claim 5E monsters would work just fine in PF2 makes little sense to me.

tl;dr: The monster stats might read "much the same" but boy, are you in for a surprise if you draw conclusions based on that!

 

[dave2008]

Well, I can't deconstruct a thousand-page rules engine here and now... so where do I start? The action economy means a monster can potentially score three hits during its turn. Since damage is significant compared to hit points, this makes a non-trivial monsters a threat. This gives players pause. Players respecting the monsters is a big plus.

And that's just a single thing. Maybe easier to say what PF2 doesn't have: in 5E the Player's Handbook liberally hands out abilities (feats, spells, ...) that monsters can only dream about having. That creates a very unfortunate atmosphere where the players' characters are just straight up superior to everybody else - a most unhealthy notion in a game already so plagued with superhero complex.

Many 5E monster abilities are in turn stunted or strangled. The basic action economy for one thing: very few monsters can do their interesting thing (movement, debuffing, ...) in the same round they do their effective thing (multiattack). So many times I've seen my monsters die before they got to show off their distinctive traits simply because the one round they got to act, I opted to have them actually do some damage instead of just showing off with no impact. In the end, I had to relax these senseless limitations just to reinject some fun into the monsters. (Just one example: Of course a high-level monster should be able to teleport and attack - high-level heroes are built to take on such critters. If the monster can only do either, it's basically defanged)

This is not a problem in PF2. Monsters routinely have the same movement capabilities as most PCs - it isn't cheap to create a hero that can outrun monsters. Besides, the three actions mean that any creature that spends all of them on movement WILL reach its foe. And ranged damage is thankfully scaled back from 5E's insane levels. In short: kiting bruisers was trivial in 5E and I'm glad Paizo won't stand for it.

I'm sure there is much much more. You're right, this is not chiefly about what's in the stat block, it's in the system. Still, the claim 5E monsters would work just fine in PF2 makes little sense to me.

tl;dr: The monster stats might read "much the same" but boy, are you in for a surprise if you draw conclusions based on that!

Thanks for taking the time to respond, much appreciated. Obviously I need to get some play time under my belt, but from your description here you have basically confirmed my thoughts (from your perspective).

 

[BryonD]

I likely did. If you didn't mean to deny Pathfinder 2 credit for making monsters dangerous "again" (I'm assuming Philip Benz is talking about 5E, not PF1), I'm all ears.

I did mean to deny it. .

I'm a little surprised at the conversation, but it is truly a trivial point. As much as I'm willing to complain about flaws in PF2E, I'm not at all trying to make that claim here. To the contrary, my point is that this issue is completely neither here nor there.

I'll try again. If they had changed not a word in the PF2 bestiary but had gone through an made every single one CR higher, then we would be discussing how PF2E had made monsters less dangerous. Now, obviously changing the CR does nothing whatsoever to change the combat effectiveness of that monster. CR is a completely meta concept. You could (and probably would) run the exact same encounter in two parallel universes and in one case it is "difficult" encounter in a game where the creatures are not that bad and in another it is classified as a "normal" encounter, but the creatures are "more deadly". And yet at the table it would play out exactly the same.

I think it is in part a side effect of the tight math allowance, but ultimately it is just a minor aesthetic choice that they bumped numbers one way vs. the other.

I could argue that PF1E is superior here. Because the CRs are shifted lower I have more economy to build diverse groups of monsters. Because my main creature is less deadly, I can add a more diverse group of mooks without blowing the encounter design budget, so I have more options for entertaining encounters. But obviously that would be a stupid claim to make. You can create just as diverse encounters for PF2E and they will work just as well. CR is a good tool if used appropriately, but the arbitrary dividing points don't matter once a GM has some experience.

You did make an interesting point regarding the 3AE in your following post. And I think that is valid. But I don't see that as the point I was responding to. And, as I already noted, I'm using the 3AE from PF Unchained anyway.

 

[Horwath]

Pro:
3 action economy, could be better with 6 actions per turn(for 6 seconds turn time)
crit system of +10/-10 rolls

Cons:
almost everything else;
smells too much like 4E,
racial(ancestry) feats are horrible, especially the 1st level when you must choose between "genetic" or "cultural" feats. As that is somehow in opposition,
number bloat treadmill of +1 to everything per level,
weapon design is bad. Who came up with idea of "volley" trait?

 

[Reynard]

I finally decided I should give PF2 a good faith try, just to see where is sits for me as a GM. I bought the Core and Bestiary PDFs when the game dropped but only perused them. I grabbed the Fall of Plaguestone adventure last night (since it is really the only 1 off adventure besides the PFS stuff) and on first glance it looks like a pretty good if fairly straight forward adventure (which is fine for an initial test).

What sorts of things should a former PF1 GM who switched to 5E keep an eye out for to get the most out of the experience as an honest assessment of whether the game is a good fit? Also, recommendations for videos or podcasts to get a decent handle on systems prior to playing are welcome.

I'll be running it on Fantasy Grounds, if that matters.

 

[CapnZapp]

What sorts of things should a former PF1 GM who switched to 5E keep an eye out for to get the most out of the experience as an honest assessment of whether the game is a good fit?

Not sure what you mean.

I mean, your literal question could be answered with something like "keep an eye out for happy players, that would suggest PF2 is a good fit".

But something tells me what you're really asking is "what do I need to watch out for to make the session a success?"

If that is the case, my first advice would be to run a prepublished scenario, which you're already planning to do. This is because it's much much MUCH easier to cause a player character death in PF2 than in 5E. Monsters can be outright brutal. Creating your own scenarios as a former 5E GM runs a considerable risk of a TPK - just ask me

Don't get me wrong, this is a good thing. As long as you, the GM, are aware of the issue. And that everyone relishes a game where the gloves have come off.

For instance, Paizo has garnered a certain amount of infamy for pitching rather hard fights against brand new players. The intro demo pitches a creature well capable of instagibbing a PC on a critical, which is not what I would have done. The adventure you're about to run starts off with a "severe" encounter, which again is not the way to introduce players (unless they're old-school hardcore gamers that love randomness)

 

[First Age]

I rated the game as excellent, coming to PF2e mostly from AD&D1e in the 80s, with a return to heroic level based games via 13th Age, Fantasy Age and The Black Hack. I've played a little of all intervening D&Ds, but not specifically PF1e. I play and run tons of other RPGs.

After 12 pages I probably have little to add on what makes it so good. I picked PF2e to introduce to the family for our Christmas RPG. Mostly neophytes to RPGs my family group of players took to the game straight away and loved it. I'll always have a soft spot for it because of that. Characters were quickly and easily made using the Pathbuilder2 Android app (I paid for it as very impressed). Players loved the options and the simple pick and choose way that characters were built up.

Players loved the tactical choices, the magic, the way they could move about the map and the sense of danger. I found the game a breeze to run, flowing the action smoothly. I'm really taken with the game and will be investing in the soon to be released Gamesmastery Guide and Bestiary 2. I think the Guide will provide options for the escalation of bonuses if you want to slow that down?

So far so great. We have a little campaign going around a quickly put together map. It's like old times.

 

[dave2008]

I rated the game as excellent, coming to PF2e mostly from AD&D1e in the 80s, with a return to heroic level based games via 13th Age, Fantasy Age and The Black Hack. I've played a little of all intervening D&Ds, but not specifically PF1e. I play and run tons of other RPGs.

After 12 pages I probably have little to add on what makes it so good. I picked PF2e to introduce to the family for our Christmas RPG. Mostly neophytes to RPGs my family group of players took to the game straight away and loved it. I'll always have a soft spot for it because of that. Characters were quickly and easily made using the Pathbuilder2 Android app (I paid for it as very impressed). Players loved the options and the simple pick and choose way that characters were built up.

Players loved the tactical choices, the magic, the way they could move about the map and the sense of danger. I found the game a breeze to run, flowing the action smoothly. I'm really taken with the game and will be investing in the soon to be released Gamesmastery Guide and Bestiary 2. I think the Guide will provide options for the escalation of bonuses if you want to slow that down?

So far so great. We have a little campaign going around a quickly put together map. It's like old times.

View attachment 117613

Fun map, what did you use to make it?

PS Is there a version of the app for I-phones? I haven't made a character for decades and am personally finding PF2e a bit daunting on the PC side (I usually DM).

 

[First Age]

Fun map, what did you use to make it?

I used Wonderdraft, one of a clutch of nice mapping packages out there.

PS Is there a version of the app for I-phones? I haven't made a character for decades and am personally finding PF2e a bit daunting on the PC side (I usually DM).

Unfortunately, I'm pretty sure it is Android only. There may be others out there in addition to Hero Lab.

 

[CapnZapp]

Dave, the Pathbuilder 2 app is so good, you could almost call it a true killer app.

You know the kind of app that makes you purchase a given system just to run that one app.

It gives you every relevant rule right when and where you need it, prefiltered on your specific character's class and level, and you can include or exclude every splatbook.

All for the relatively reasonable price of... nothing. (Apart from the phone purchase, that is. So let's say $50 for the cheapest Amazon tablet?)