xguild's page

I was looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard. If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?

Oddly enough it actually works in complete opposition to the math and assumption. In your example, the Dwarf Barbarian is not only far more likely to go down far more often, but level doesn't actually matter, this will be true throughout the life of the character.

A character's role in combat and how they must fight in order to contribute with that role is almost exclusively the cause of how often you will go down. Wizards tend to almost never go down in fights and if monsters go after Wizards ignoring melee warriors like Barbarians it's even less likely as that monster is going to die even faster and the advantage to the players will be even greater.

In fact the biggest advantage you can get in a fight is for monsters to ignore the front-line fighters and go after soft targets like Wizards, you can actually win fights that are much higher level than normal when such a strategy is employed.

In fact, 1/3 of the CRB is material that is normally placed in the GMG in D&D, not just the specific chapter for this, as the whole part of treasures and the scenario is described there.
If you ignore all this content, the book is longer than the PHB, with approximately 450 pages. But much more due to additional options the game gives players than it is some added complexity.

You end up seeing the GM part as just one chapter, because you usually ignore the fact that players in 5e have to go "fishing" all the items part that interests them in the GMG (and it's been like that at least since 3.0 se as far as I can remember).

I understand Paizo's decision to make such a big mess precisely because they saw that in D&D players ended up being "forced" to have to access other books to do things like equip characters above level 1 and also end the need for GM need to buy a 2nd book in addition to the Bestiary to...

Yeah personally I have never had an issue with books, my preference really is to have 1 book for my RPG and simply find everything I need in that one book, have it be well edited and offer as much coverage as possible. Like, I don't need to read and know every inch of an RPG to run it, but I do like to have everything covered so that when I reference a rule or situation I'm trying to deal with during a game, I can quickly find an answer.

This has always been fundamentally one of my biggest issues with 5e.. its poor coverage and the assumption that a DM can simply judge and rule
on everything on the fly. Truth is that I can, I just don't want to. I like structure and consistency.. If I need to know how much a +2 Dagger costs.. I want to look it up not guess because when you are constantly ruling on things like that, your games become really inconsistent as I'm not going to remember what I did last time but my players sure will.

Its one of my favorite aspects of PF2e... I have never had a question at the table the book didn't answer in detail.. to me that isn't complexity, thats completness.

xguild wrote:

5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

You are incorrect in a lot of things, but this just stands out. The only reason PHB is 300 pages and CRB is 640 is because PHB is only half the book, the other being DMG which is another 340. Oh, 300+340=640? Well, what a coincidence!

People say that all the time but its not about content so much as it is about about editing, style of writing, font and construction of the book driven by purpose. If you used the same editing structure and approach used in the 5e players handbook to re-create the PF2 core rulebook, the PF2 rulebook would be around 1,500-2,000 pages.

It's true that the PF2e rulebooks has an extra chapter that is more verbose and related to DMing that are reserved in 5e in the GM guide, but that is not the core reason the book is so much bigger.

xguild wrote:

There is a really strong link between video games and TTRPG's, in fact, generally speaking the more translatable a TTRPG system is to a video game mechanic, the more popular the edition is.

I don't think there's any such link. But I definitely agree that TTRPGs inspire video games, they sometimes take the mechanics (but it's, overall, only a small portion of video games).

On the other hand, video games inspired TTRPGs also exist. But they don't take the mechanics from the video games, or at least not directly, they take the setting mostly.

There are inspirations between both worlds. But what WotC is trying to do since quite some time is to just translate functionalities from video games to TTRPGs. And that, I doubt it works wonder (at least, as of now, it hasn't worked and I'm very doubtful when looking at what WotC is working on).

I'm not saying I disagree, what I'm saying is that I think the lines are a lot more in sync then they are apart. A good TTRPG mechanic that is codified and has a strong execution is very easy to translate to a PC game mechanic and games that are this well codified make typically for much better RPG's (better not being synchronise with popular just in case there is any debate).

The strength of PF2e for example is that it's so well codified, so clear, its mechanics verbose, and mathematical. PF2e big selling points are clear rules, balanced rules and options rich. PF2e rules can be directly translated forbadum into video game mechanics without adjustment and they would work perfectly, the core rulebook is actually written in a style that is very common in the PC game development industry.. it quite literally qualifies as a PC game design document.

4e was an attempt to get closer to video games, and WotC is doing it again.

I really feel TTRPGs and video games are just not the same product at all and every time WotC tries to get closer to video games they just fail miserably. I really don't understand why they think there's such a strong link between TTRPGs and video games that you can just take things from the video game world and apply them to the TTRPG world and it'll work like magic.

When Hasbro says that they don't monetize their game enough, I feel that they are both right and wrong. Wrong because they completely put aside the miniatures, dice, VTTs (computers, internet connections) and other "costs" we put in our game. Wrong also because it's a game you play with friends at home, so people will rarely pay as much for a home game than they would for something that asks for a specific infrastructure. But right because I feel they still could gain more money out of the hobby. But to gain that money, they need to provide services we care about. We want content, we want services that really help us. We don't want to be taken as hostages, trapped in a system that forces us to pay for... for what? Because ultimately, we can just sit together in our basements and play. If the services provided are not good enough then we will leave.

MtG took a hit because of their latest releases, D&D will certainly take one, too. Sometimes, you can't just make better something that is already extremely good, especially not without understanding the core of the hobby.

There is a really strong link between video games and TTRPG's, in fact, generally speaking the more translatable a TTRPG system is to a video game mechanic, the more popular the edition is.

The issue however is how that is represented in the TTRPG. With 4e the mechanics were not only translatable, but they were in practice executed as video game mechanics on paper and that is a stark difference.

For example the advantage/disadvantage system in 5e is a good example of a very translatable mechanic to video games, its easy to replicate, but it is also a very TTRPG mechanic because we don't codify the "when" of its usage.. Meaning, when you apply this mechanic is up to the DM and its something he "judges" and determines when to use it. You could easily have written 10 pages in the Players Handbook on when it does and doesn't apply setting clear parameters and had they done that it would "feel" like a video game mechanic but because it's left as a judgment, it does not feel that way even though if that same mechanic would be applied to a video game it would be very easy to codify with specific times when it does and doesn't apply in a systematic way.

I don't know if that makes sense but 4e was very codified, the execution of the combat mechanic didn't actually require a DM for anything short of monsters and players deciding who to target. There were no judgment calls to make, there was even a very clear optimized order in which any class at any level would execute powers and the powers themselves were mathematically even, meaning it didn't matter if you were class X executing power Y, it would work the same as Class Z executing power D with a different graphical (narrative) flare.

You quite literally with limited effort create a self-executing AI that runs 4e combat and it would match up exactly with how it would be executed by players. Players really didn't make any decisions in 4e, there were very obvious, easy-to-understand optimal actions you took in a very obvious and optimal order with very firm statistical results.

You can't do that with most TTRPG system because they usually involve DM's making narrative choices about how to execute mechanics.

PF2e in that way is a lot closer to 4e as the mechanics are codified. The way its different is that unlike 4e, where after selecting a class, there are limited deviations of what characters could do, in PF2e there are so many options at every point in character selection that you could ask 1000 people to create a fighter and you would have 1000 unique characters that do different things and often, wildly different.

Its only the depth of the options that make it seem less codified but strictly speaking there are clear executions for everything and very few DM judgement calls on how mechanics are executed in PF2e much in the same way 4e worked. Again.. only difference is the brevity of options and parameters.

This makes Pathfinder a very easy system to translate to a PC game and that structure is why its popular. Judgement based mechanics like say 1e B/X, basically mean that the rules of the game (how they are executed) are up to the DM as most executions of events is not governed by a rule. In PF2e for example, you would be hard-pressed to name something a player could do that isn't codified in the rules as an executable mechanic. Even simple things like mounting and dismounting a horse are covered. Everything is codified, just like a video game.

xguild wrote:

I think the reason DM Lair is relevant is that this channel is among a fairly long list of former D&D 5e channels that have switched to PF2e. It's happening quite a bit, especially over the last 3-4 months.

This "switching" of systems however is not really out of character for the D&D lifecycle, namely as the current edition of D&D ages, inevitably it ages poorly.

When D&D 6e comes out, again, inevitably many of these channels will switch back and do "why I'm switching back to D&D" videos while complaining about PFE2.

It's all pretty predictable.

I'm not so sure.

The WOTC designers are currently at a bit of a loss as to what to do in One D&D. The problem is that the commercial part of WOTC pressured them to maintain compatibility with the 5e, curiously not thinking about the players, but rather to avoid a hiatus in the sales of supplements for the 5e, especially in the period in which they are going to release the movie.

But there are many criticisms from players and mainly DMs and youtubers that 5e needs more than adjustments, it needs a complete overhaul in its systems, from the most basic mechanics, such as even advantage rolls.

If they follow this line of making only minor adjustments that in practice do not address the main structural problems of 5e, in a 5.5 for example, and in a scenario where adventures and third parties will have difficulty being compatible with any new licenses (there are already criticisms that WOTC is not putting all mechanical content in Creative Commons, and that the very version of CC they are using may end up hurting content creators 3rd to earn money) where most likely the main problems remained in the name of backwards compatibility, unless WOTC pay the youtubers to stay in their system and VTT, I wouldn't be so sure they'll come back. The most likely, in my opinion, is that we have a scenario closer to the 4e revisions, which even adjusted some defects and criticisms of the game, but in the end what really resolved it was the...

Interesting take. If that is true, then this crisis of faith a lot of content creators and community leaders are having is a lot more serious.

I mean my assumption has always been that while there are some quibbles about the system that can make the grass look greener on the Pathfinder side, its still D&D and ultimately with a refresher book they are back in business.

In my case, my switch to Pathfinder 2e really was more about my issues with 5e, than it was about solutions of PF2e. Meaning, I don't think I would have made the switch on the basis of how good PF2e was or the quality of PF2e. There are lots of great systems out there, but I want to play D&D because its D&D.

In the end however that sort of brand loyalty was constantly being tested due to all the shortcomings and issues I was having in my game, many of which much like DM Lair just made the game stale after a while.

I remember when I first picked up PF2e, long before I actually considered the switch, I recognized how most if not all the issues that I was having were being directly addressed by PF2e, not just in the rules but very consciously in the writing and explanation of the game.

In fact, initially, I was just going to implement certain aspects of PF2e into my D&D game and after doing that for a while, I realized I was actually unconsciously, mentally switching systems at which point I just decided, screw, I'm just going to switch.

Since then I have grown to look at Pathfinder 2e as the new version of D&D. Honestly, my group never says "let's play Pathfinder" or "When is the next Pathfinder session"... everyone calls it D&D... we refer to the Champion as "The Paladin"... I mean, in kind of a weird way, PF2e just kind of took the place of what I think 6e should or could have been.

That sense that we are playing D&D and that sort of brand loyalty and "feeling" of ownership and being part of D&D is still there even as we are actually playing Pathfinder 2e. In a weird way, no one feels like we switched systems or abandoned D&D, it feels more like we just moved on to the new edition of the game.

If that is the same feeling people are having about the game on any meaningful scale, I think Wizards of the Coast is in a lot of trouble. Its almost like Paizo is just taking over the D&D brand unofficially.

I think the reason DM Lair is relevant is that this channel is among a fairly long list of former D&D 5e channels that have switched to PF2e. It's happening quite a bit, especially over the last 3-4 months.

This "switching" of systems however is not really out of character for the D&D lifecycle, namely as the current edition of D&D ages, inevitably it ages poorly.

When D&D 6e comes out, again, inevitably many of these channels will switch back and do "why I'm switching back to D&D" videos while complaining about PFE2.

It's all pretty predictable.

Totally Not Gorbacz wrote:

lifting best ideas from about every edition and permutation of the game to deliver something that works.

Just to be that kind of troll... ;)

Don't take this one too seriously because I'm picking at a nit that I know full well was a generalization, and doing it mostly for semi-humor.

I see this claim a lot but... what would we say is something good they lifted from AD&D 1E? The 1978 rules?

I personally felt those rules were garbage, even back when it was current and almost the only choice out there other than basic D&D. I switched to playing 'Melee' and 'Wizard' the moment I found them (two mini-games that eventually evolved into GURPS).

I think it's a bit less about pulling specific mechanics from past editions, as much as it understanding how and why different mechanics evolved the way they did over editions of the game and their various offshoots.

Every version of D&D is a construction based on the experience of everything that came before, but there is a three-way division in the D&D genre of games (and it is its own genre at this point) that is more conceptual than mechanical, even though often the discussion tend to focus more on identifying and arguing over which mechanics are better, even though what we are really talking about are the concepts.

The three conceptual variants of D&D are Narrative Realism, Adventure Fantasy and Tactical adventuring.

Games like B/X and 1st edition AD&D are examples of Narrative Realism. These are games where their is a focus on creating a real feeling and dangerous fantasy world, almost to the point of a survival game.

Adventure Fantasy are games like 5th edition. The point here is to focus on adventuring elements of the game, realism doesn't play a fundamental role and while some tactical aspects exist they are intentionally obtuse to ensure the adventuring narrative can take precedence.

Finally their are tactical adventuring systems like 4e and Pathfinder 2e, where the game is defined like a tactical game. Every action you can take is clearly written,the focus is on making sure anything you can do in the game is an executable mechanic and the game has a generally high focus on tactical combat.

There are of course games that merge into each other and all of these games share various elements but a person who like Tactical Adventuring is going to usually hate Adventuring Narrative games because they are actively opposing concepts. For example D&D 5e very intentionally omits certain types of rules to ensure they are obtuse so that they aren't treated as execution while a tactical adventuring games very intentionally have clear rules to ensure the rules are clear.

Ultimately it boils down to conceptual preferences however and not specific mechanics which again, is almost always how discussions about these sorts of things develop. For example people can't accept that 1e's squirrely and disconnected rules aren't the act of bad game design, but part of a conscious and very intentional philosophy in the same way 5e players can't understand why an RPG needs a 650+ page rulebook like PF2e as they can't accept the philosophy of creating a rulebook that covers everything in case you need/want a rule as opposed to how 5e does it (giving you only the rules that are necessary).

Im ranting a bit but the point here is that these things boil down to gaming philosophies and concepts, rather than mechanics.

For me the switch was not based on pressure but more out of frustration.

Dm Lair really nails all the points of 5e that really drove me nuts. Balance, higher level play, monster design, cheese builds, combat speed.. it’s all true from my experience. I would add one of my biggest frustrations which is adventure design, some really terrible stuff in particular over the last couple of years.

I honestly believe the only reason anyone still plays 5e over PF2e is the pain of making a switch like that. There is a lot of comfort when you get to know a system and switching a whole group, it’s very painful even if the switch ultimately improve things. At the core of PF2e, when you get right down to it is just a really well designed D&D game. I know a lot of 5e players and most don’t want to try or play PF2e because they just don’t want to relearn a new game and buy all the stuff.

I get it. Having gone through that this last year, it was a really big hassle for me.

For me personally switching to Pathfinder 2e has been a deeply involved and long process but in the end I can really second most of what the DM Lair talks about PF2e and 5e.

PF2E is just such a clean, challenging and fun system with tons of customization. In the end even though I still feel like I have abandoned something when I made the switch, I honestly have no regrets at this point.

Same D&D fun, without the D&D problems. I say it through gritted teeth, but I have to admit, it really is the better system.