Pathfinder 2E Release Day Second Edition Amazon Sales Rank

[S'mon]

The idea that official 5e monsters are unexciting is becoming a thing of the past - to keep trotting out this idea is disingenuous.

Remembering some issues I had with 4e Essentials "ok I'll just reach for a hobgoblin ...uh oh" - I definitely think there is a place for mechanically bland monsters! For me the 5e MM design works well especially when supplemented - you need your potatoes as well as your meat IMO.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Remembering some issues I had with 4e Essentials "ok I'll just reach for a hobgoblin ...uh oh" - I definitely think there is a place for mechanically bland monsters! For me the 5e MM design works well especially when supplemented - you need your potatoes as well as your meat IMO.

Don't get me wrong, I like the 5e MM monsters but the design work has clearly been improving throughout the years. I tend to customise and tinker with monsters anyway so I rarely have issues with anything.

 

[Parmandur]

PF2 has rallied a bit today, back to #22, nipping at the heels of Course of Strahd, Ghosts of Saltmarsh, and the Sword Coast Adventurers Guide.

The D&D Essentials Kit got someone's attention, because it was recatagorized as a board game rather than a book, and is now ripping up the Board Game charts.

 

[Shroomy]

The monsters in the 5e Monster Manual may not be exciting but monster design has continued to improve. Books like Volo's Guide, Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, Guildmaster's Guide to Ravnica all demonstrate an evolving design method.

The idea that official 5e monsters are unexciting is becoming a thing of the past - to keep trotting out this idea is disingenuous.

There's not even that much difference between many of the PF and 5e monsters! The bag of hit points argument is usually prima facie disingenuous no matter which modern edition of D&D or PF you're talking about.

 

[Campbell]

I have only gotten to play the game as a player, but I am looking forward to stepping behind the screen shortly and a lot of that has to do with the monster design. It is my earnest opinion that these monsters look like they will be more fun to play than 5th Edition monsters. Let's not get it twisted. This is not me saying that 5th Edition monsters are boring, especially more recent designs. In comparative analysis this stuff gets overblown.

Here's why Pathfinder 2 Monsters look more fun to me:

• Monsters are built off a similar number base as player characters. A monster of the same level as a player character will generally have a similar number of hit points and do a pretty similar amount of damage. This keeps the game exciting for me because both player characters and monsters go down pretty quick.
• The level scaling makes higher level monsters really scary. I love that out of the box you can use higher level monsters as meaningful solo fights and lower level monsters as minions and have them feel that way.
• Things like resistances, weaknesses, and immunities are fairly common. This means that players need to adjust and change tactics for each monster. They are all like puzzles for players to solve.
• Monsters have a lot more active rather than passive abilities. Coupled with the three action economy there is a lot to play with on each individual monster turn. How monsters are played really matters.
• A lot more monsters have an impact beyond the encounter. Things like diseases, poisons, curses, and other long term consequences are plentiful.
• They are not afraid to play around with the form. They make trade offs in the monster math all the time to make monsters feel unique. They also often include different abilities you can trade out for monsters like zombies to give them different feels.
• This is subjective, but I really like the way Paizo writes Monster lore. It feels more focused on using the creatures. It also has a lot less passive voice.

I have seen the impact of some of these things as a player. Small differences in design can make a big impact. Ghouls in Pathfinder 2 are leaping all the place, feasting on dead corpses, and carriers of both disease and paralysis. Fighting them felt really different to me.

 

[Matrix Sorcica]

Here's why Pathfinder 2 Monsters look more fun to me:

I'm getting more and more certain my perfect Heartbreaker is a combination of 5E and PF2.

 

[Acolyte of Zothique]

I have only gotten to play the game as a player, but I am looking forward to stepping behind the screen shortly and a lot of that has to do with the monster design. It is my earnest opinion that these monsters look like they will be more fun to play than 5th Edition monsters. Let's not get it twisted. This is not me saying that 5th Edition monsters are boring, especially more recent designs. In comparative analysis this stuff gets overblown.

Here's why Pathfinder 2 Monsters look more fun to me:

• Monsters are built off a similar number base as player characters. A monster of the same level as a player character will generally have a similar number of hit points and do a pretty similar amount of damage. This keeps the game exciting for me because both player characters and monsters go down pretty quick.
• The level scaling makes higher level monsters really scary. I love that out of the box you can use higher level monsters as meaningful solo fights and lower level monsters as minions and have them feel that way.
• Things like resistances, weaknesses, and immunities are fairly common. This means that players need to adjust and change tactics for each monster. They are all like puzzles for players to solve.
• Monsters have a lot more active rather than passive abilities. Coupled with the three action economy there is a lot to play with on each individual monster turn. How monsters are played really matters.
• A lot more monsters have an impact beyond the encounter. Things like diseases, poisons, curses, and other long term consequences are plentiful.
• They are not afraid to play around with the form. They make trade offs in the monster math all the time to make monsters feel unique. They also often include different abilities you can trade out for monsters like zombies to give them different feels.
• This is subjective, but I really like the way Paizo writes Monster lore. It feels more focused on using the creatures. It also has a lot less passive voice.

I have seen the impact of some of these things as a player. Small differences in design can make a big impact. Ghouls in Pathfinder 2 are leaping all the place, feasting on dead corpses, and carriers of both disease and paralysis. Fighting them felt really different to me.

Quite a few of the points you make apply to 5e. The 5e DMG has a section on how to adjust monsters by giving them different abilities - I have been doing this for the past 4 years as well as adding character class levels, adjusting damage etc.

I can easily make higher level monsters very scary - give them legendary actions.

As for monster lore, well, Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes devote entire sections to particular monsters and races and do a deep dive.

With 5e, due to the streamlined rules, I can have my cake and eat it - deep lore, interesting monsters and challenging encounters. And it's all easy to run for the overworked DM. It's not difficult. This is not a unique selling point of PF2E, just putting this out there for the sake of balance.

 

[darjr]

I’ve tpkd a high tier table with optimizers. Using the encounter out of the adventure. Was it a solo monster? Did it go last in the round? That’s a recipe for its early demise in more than 5e

 

[CapnZapp]

The idea that official 5e monsters are unexciting is becoming a thing of the past - to keep trotting out this idea is disingenuous.

When the Monster Manual and the first five or so adventure hardbacks are suitably updated and re-issued, yes, certainly.

In the meanwhile, though, the only thing that's disingenuous is arguing we shouldn't review the core offering on its own merits.

 

[CapnZapp]

Quite a few of the points you make apply to 5e. The 5e DMG has a section on how to adjust monsters by giving them different abilities - I have been doing this for the past 4 years as well as adding character class levels, adjusting damage etc.

I can easily make higher level monsters very scary - give them legendary actions.

As for monster lore, well, Volo's Guide to Monsters and Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes devote entire sections to particular monsters and races and do a deep dive.

With 5e, due to the streamlined rules, I can have my cake and eat it - deep lore, interesting monsters and challenging encounters. And it's all easy to run for the overworked DM. It's not difficult. This is not a unique selling point of PF2E, just putting this out there for the sake of balance.

You seem unwilling to accept the difference between having to do it yourself and getting it served on a platter by the publisher.

That is, if "you can fix it" really was a valid response, there would be no basis for any rpg criticism ever.