Pathfinder 2E Embedding Level Into The Narrative

[CapnZapp]

My concern is whiffing - you wait 15 minutes for the initiative to get back around to you, and your attacks all miss and you felt like you accomplished nothing. Give me a system where even against tougher opponents I have a ~75% to contribute in some way when doing my normal attack sequence.

Casters, with half damage on miss, excuse me, on save, are taken care of this psychological need. I don't want a system in today's day and age that intentionally does that to weapon wielders. I really hope the numbers above on % hits for a creature 3 levels higher are wrong, otherwise PF2 has designed itself in a space that isn't for me. May work for others, I wish them enjoyment.

Again, an illustration why maybe Paizo should have not designed their game in a bubble...

PF2 is clearly different from 5E, which intentionally makes you hit more often than you miss, even before we take the bounded accuracy into account.

In PF2, however, you often have only 50-60% hit rate against level-appropriate foes.

The point is to then stop spamming attacks (since your 2nd and 3rd attacks are essentially worthless) and instead find enjoyment in using buffs and debuffs to subtly change the odds - adding a few +1's to Team Heroes while adding a few -1's to Team Monster is what Pathfinder 2 is all about.

 

[CapnZapp]

There is a lot that can be done tactically and strategically to shift accuracy and downgrade an opponent's chance of success. You are expected to use spells, consumables, active class abilities, and things like feint, demoralize, and flanking to improve your chances of success. Combat maneuvers like Trip and Grapple that target weak save DCs are also meant to be compelling strategies. Faced with a superior foe blindly attacking it is meant to be somewhat of a frustrating experience because it is a losing strategy and should feel like that.

Like a wizard can cast Fear which causes Frightened 1 even on a successful save and if you flank that then causes the Flat Footed condition. Together that adds up to bring your success chances up to what they would be against a foe of your level all other things being equal. Inspire Courage from a Bard or Bless from a Cleric will also grant a +1 status bonus to all attacks which stacks with the other two.

The base character math is fairly tight, but there are plenty of ways to shift the ways it plays out at the table.

Do note that Pathfinder 2 is very much unlike 5th edition here, in that you're doing all of these things and they each change things by +1 or -1 only.

There are no silver bullets where you plonk down a huge debuff or massive powerup that all by itself changes the encounter.

Being able to shave a single action from a single monster, or giving it a -1 to checks to a single ability for a single round is supposed to be a big deal in Pathfinder 2.

Prepare to hunt for small victories - things you wouldn't even register in 5E. Things that wouldn't even be a rounding-error in 5E.

You should definitely be alert and concentrated when playing PF2. There is no leeway for "just winging it", since that would defeat the whole purpose of cheering over that the monster got a -1 to a single check, once.

 

[CapnZapp]

"The narrative of the game is one in which goblin warriors are scenery to a 5th level party and are not included in the encounter budget."

Same as in 5e. I really see no difference here. The CR system DMG explicitly tells GM to "dont count monsters whose cr is "significantly lower" than the average party CR unless some aspect of the cresture or scene will allow them to significantly contribute to the difficulty.

I use them as and describe them as "scenery" all the time. Honestly your basic goblin fighters in 5e vs 5th level party without some scene swerve are scenery, just as you describe in PF.

I see a HUGE difference between 5E and Pathfinder 2.

Not sure what you're getting at here...?

In your other post you seem to think the games are basically the same except Pathfinder 2 shifts the "medium difficulty" a couple of notches. Instead of a level 7 creature being not-that-dangerous to a level 7 hero, a level 7 creature is a worthy opponent, much like maybe a level 9 creature is in 5E.

This is wrong.

In PF2 you have a much less open window of appropriate foes, so that anything outside of L+2 to L-2 requires caution from the GM.

That L+0 is more difficult is in addition to this.

This means that you're basically steered into a more dangerous game, unless you consistently offer mostly foes of less than your own level. Which would mean a really narrow selection pool, because as soon as L-3, monsters start to "drop off the radar".

Add to that that monsters are not defanged in Pathfinder 2. All those really cool and deadly moves heroes can play with, monster can have too.

If you go with encounters as suggested, players will find that their characters much much often face adversaries with real skill and real moves. It means the play experience is decidedly different, even if you are technically correct in that you COULD emulate 5E (or rather the feeling it gives that most creatures are simply not in the same league as heroes) by building your own encounters.

 

[dave2008]

In Pathfinder 2, it is just the default: at level 5, first-level people doesn't matter any more.

Ugh, that is the kind of thing that concerns me as a DM (and one of the reasons I am unlikely to run PF2e), I'm just not sure if it will be an issue as a player. Hopefully I can find out sometime soon.

 

[dave2008]

That's rather putting too high expectations on what this will likely say.

After all, you can already now manually subtract level from every roll from every creature. I don't see why this will not take you at least 90% of the way.

Yes, they will likely spam a few pages worth of advice on how this changes things (from how the world works to how NPCs look at you), but really, without having read any of it, I can already tell you they could just have written "...or, you know, how it works in 5E".

If Paizo really wanted to fully commit to a proficiency-without-level alternative, and to get my credit for doing so, we would see a Bestiary where all this subtraction had been already made for us. That is, all the numbers in all the monster stat blocks having been recalculated to not include level.

My point is: Paizo don't get my credit for providing a profiency-without-level game just by publishing a page in a supplement. That still leaves all the work to the GM and players.

Yes, that is basically what I expect as well.

 

[CapnZapp]

Ugh, that is the kind of thing that concerns me as a DM (and one of the reasons I am unlikely to run PF2e), I'm just not sure if it will be an issue as a player. Hopefully I can find out sometime soon.

My point is, Paizo should totally issue a PDF version of their Bestiary (ideally augmented by the similarly-recalculated NPC stat blocks from the upcoming GMG) with level extracted from the numbers.

This way they get to eat the cake and have it too, for a moderate effort (since I assume their books are layout from a master file connected to a spreadsheet or database, where you change a number or a formula once and it automatically changes everywhere).

The Core Rulebook is less of an issue, since 90% of effects reference the player character's DC. Once you simply write down a different, lower, number on your character sheet, you're pretty much done. Just a few static DCs are left, and those can easily be recalculated on the spot.

 

[dave2008]

IThe level based scaling and critical success/critical failure rules help make differences in prowess feel meaningful at the table.

I don't have any issue with the concept, but from everything I am hearing it just happens too fast. The level based scaling + the revised critical rules means a few levels is a huge jump. That is not something I want as a DM. That I know. However, not sure how it will feel to be a player. I will have to find a group and try it first.

 

[dave2008]

My point is, Paizo should totally issue a PDF version of their Bestiary (ideally augmented by the similarly-recalculated NPC stat blocks from the upcoming GMG) with level extracted from the numbers.

I like the idea, but I will be surprised if it happens.

 

[5ekyu]

My point was simple, especially in reference to the example given, both games advise or represent that in plsy significantly lower CR crestures are reduced to non-significsnt scenery.

I see a HUGE difference between 5E and Pathfinder 2.

Not sure what you're getting at here...?

In your other post you seem to think the games are basically the same except Pathfinder 2 shifts the "medium difficulty" a couple of notches. Instead of a level 7 creature being not-that-dangerous to a level 7 hero, a level 7 creature is a worthy opponent, much like maybe a level 9 creature is in 5E.

This is wrong.

In PF2 you have a much less open window of appropriate foes, so that anything outside of L+2 to L-2 requires caution from the GM.

That L+0 is more difficult is in addition to this.

This means that you're basically steered into a more dangerous game, unless you consistently offer mostly foes of less than your own level. Which would mean a really narrow selection pool, because as soon as L-3, monsters start to "drop off the radar".

Add to that that monsters are not defanged in Pathfinder 2. All those really cool and deadly moves heroes can play with, monster can have too.

If you go with encounters as suggested, players will find that their characters much much often face adversaries with real skill and real moves. It means the play experience is decidedly different, even if you are technically correct in that you COULD emulate 5E (or rather the feeling it gives that most creatures are simply not in the same league as heroes) by building your own encounters.

No argument that PF2 might limit the scluce of monsters a GM csn use effectively more than 5e does. That's a shsme.

No argument thst setting CR equal at basically "deadly" might well lead to more unexpected deaths as it's an intuitive move for novices to make. I think 5e made the wiser choice in setting the more intuitive "off the cuff" at "medium" not deadly.

But after a bit, after the GM reads the expectations and sees it in play a bit, both let the GM dial-in the encounter level appropriate to the goals- and it foesnt matter that that might be ACR+3 in 5e vs Cr+0 in PF2.

That said, alot is going to depend on their bestiary. Maybe PF2 provides much more "compact" CR divisions, so that your imagined Pf2 "CR within 2" has plenty of options.

Time will tell.

 

[5ekyu]

I am not talking about outcomes here. I am talking about how things feel in play - in motion as it were. I am talking about a higher level monster not just being stronger, but feeling stronger. I am talking about the mechanics of the game helping us to feel what our characters are feeling.

It's not just about those goblins being scenery. It's about them feeling like scenery.

Like when a 5th level fighter uses Swipe to swing at two goblin warriors, rolls a 2, and they still go down. The fighter is not just bigger and stronger - the player feels bigger and stronger. Same for when 2 other goblins try to shoot him with arrows and the DM rolls a 14 and a 13 out in the open and the arrows glance off the fighter's sword. We see his fighting skill at work and feel how much more skill he has gained.

Likewise I do not just want higher level monsters to be dangerous and for the outcome to be uncertain. I want them to feel dangerous and for the fight to feel uncertain in the act of playing the game. Making a monster of the same level an equal and having the same like ballpark stuff is not just shifting the numbers to me. It just feels right. It makes a fighter facing an orc warrior feel like they have met their match in every possible way.

The level based scaling and critical success/critical failure rules help make differences in prowess feel meaningful at the table. This is not just about combat either. This is true for social encounters, dealing with traps, exploration, and just about everything a character will do in the game.

Ludo Narrative Harmony, the connection between what is happening in the narrative of the game and how we as players and GMs feel during play, is the most important thing to me when I evaluate and play roleplaying games. In my experience so far it is one of Pathfinder 2's greatest strengths.

Honestly, I would not want to debate about one's "feelings" any more than flavors and tastes.

Whole you say you dont want to discuss outcomes, you then go into outcomes.

Let's look at your "feeling".

On a role of 2 the fighter wiped two hobbledins...

That might let some ferl "hey I am big bad..." or it might tell another "hmmm... they are so weak, it doesnt matter what I do."

It's like winning a foot race against a house plant. "Yay, where's my trophy?"

Neither feeling is right or wrong or better - they just appeal to different people differently.

But both systems recognize the scenery sense of goblin warrior base against 5th level folks. Both produce basically squash outcomes unless circumstances allow differences. Iirc both also provide within setting allies that can make that "scenery" impactful, as scenery can be.

But, my own flavor preferences are to have best of both worlds... goblins who are scenery as far as how much they will impact the outcome (barring specifics) 5th level party that chooses wisely* but who still seem to be a bit of a threat... not just house plants we kill on a 2 pretty much without trying.