dave2008
Legend
You can also just use higher level versions of the same monster. I believe they do this in some of the APs.
Pathfinder 2E Regarding the complexity of Pathfinder 2
dave2008
Legend
Well to be fair, 5e monsters have a ton of unique abilities and mechanics for players to deal with too. The big difference is the ease of dealing with them in 5e versus PF2. In 5e the unique mechanic or ability can be (but may not be) a minor blip vs a big issue in PF2.
Again, I don't really think the monster design is that dissimilar, it is just PF2 itself that creates a different feel. To be clear, I mean this as a compliment to PF2 design. It elevates the whole ship.
I too love PF2E- mostly for the same reasons Porridge and Doctor Futurity have already listed. But also:
- Exploration mode mechanics, skill actions, and the GMG subsystems let me focus most of the game on exploration. This is pretty much why I play it over pathfinder 1e or dnd 5e.
- The hazard system lets me represent a large variety of hazards with one unified rule mechanic (that I can print onto 4x6 index cards and flip through very quickly at the table).
- Top down casting is fantastic. Having guilt free utility spells for use in exploration mode just opens up so much choice for the wizard/cleric.
- Defense is important in combat. Unlike previous editions of DnD and PF1e which tended to skew heavily towards offensive actions, especially at higher levels, defensive actions are very worthwhile and often the difference between winning and losing (my players really sweat when they can’t get their shield up or step away from the enemy and I can’t remember the last time someone chose to do nothing but strike).
- The difficult of encounters and exploration mode creates a much wider space for tactics. I have seen: melee characters form a battle line and when the enemy engaged the line the hidden wizard fired an AoE into them for massive damage; two fighters coordinating to tank a foe, swapping out with each other for healing as necessary; PCs retreating from combat (it is actually a standard tactic they consider!); PCs retreating from combat, going into exploration (chase) mode, find an obstacle they can use to their advantage, turning around and fighting, and then repeating the process; and more. It makes combat interesting.
- It’s easy to make boss creatures and boss fights. Also the ‘puzzle’ nature of monster design and the generic difficulty level helps focus back on the exploration aspect of the game - players want to scout and pick the location of their fights or try and focus on certain opponents while avoiding others, etc.
- I find that it is easy to achieve a flow state playing pf2e - higher emphasis on player skill, exploration and encounter mode switching out to provide a variety of different challenges, and the overall difficulty level all work together to make game super engaging.
The 3-action economy also lets enemies do more interesting things. You can try a trip or disarm without it taking your only action. You have built in reasons to use tactical movement for flanking instead of a tacked-on optional mechanic in the DMG (that doesn't really work well.)
Granted, comparing a less interesting grunt monster like an orc, you're not going to see as many cool actions.
Granted, comparing a less interesting grunt monster like an orc, you're not going to see as many cool actions.
Thomas Shey
Legend
I also should note that it was true with D&D for at least the two prior editions, and arguably earlier.
Justice and Rule
Hero
So this is kind of deceptive because, well, all powers are not created equal. First off, D&D 5E's Aggressive is not quite as game-changing as PF2's Ferocity. With Aggressive, it gets Orcs into combat quicker via the bonus action to move towards a hostile creature, but I'm not sure it changes how you actually engage with them.
Ferocity, on the other hand, is naughty word huge. Basically as a reaction an Orc can just stand back up, getting 1 hit point and taking the Wounded 1 trait. They can do this up to Wounded 3, at which they can't use the ability anymore. Now you can kill them outright if you just hit them while they don't have a reaction, but suddenly there's a whole new tactical game to play in trying to take on an Orc in PF2 compared to D&D5E.
Also worth noting that not all Orcs have Attack of Opportunity: Warriors and Warchiefs do, Brutes do not. So stronger Orcs are stickier, though when they get down in health using that ability becomes risky since it shares the same reaction with Ferocity.
But the nice thing is that the enemies can all try those things, too. Having mechanics the players to do things like shield bash also gives the GM similar options for humanoid enemies. Along with the different weapon mechanics you can fit different humanoids for different tasks.
For example, the Orc Warrior has the Necksplitter, which is Forceful (a +1 to damage for each weapon die for the second attack on a turn, and +2 to damage for each weapon die on further attacks on a turn) and has Sweep (+1 to hit if you've already attacked another target), which means they are probably inclined to try to make multiple attacks with more people around, and are more likely to cause more damage.
Orc Brutes, on the other hand, have dual Orc Knuckleblades, which means they have Disarm (Can attempt to disarm with their weapon rather than a free hand) and Agile (only a -4/-8 to multi-attacks). So, in theory, Brutes are better at disarming and are more likely to hit on multiple attacks.
(Note: Admittedly disarming is actually rather hard as you need a critical success to actually do it. But the success result of giving your opponent a -2 to attack with that item is very good, and a +2 to disarm until the start of the opponent's next turn is good if you have a buddy nearby trying to do the same.)
So there's a lot of inbuilt things within the system itself not tied to creatures like weapon traits and combat maneuvers which give room for interesting encounters. And sure, you can do some of that stuff in 5E, but I think it's better managed here.
You can, but the level band is still the same since you necessarily have to boost the creature up to the minimum (or higher). That’s what I assume the OP meant (rather than which monsters are available when).
Thomas Shey
Legend
I was actually referring to the fact that monsters much up or down level from you were nonstarters in practice.
dave2008
Legend
I'm sorry, but I can't ,make any sense of this statement. Can you clarify?
Similar Threads
