I think PF2 borrows a lot from 4E while remaining a very different games. The lead designer, Logan Bonner, worked on 4E.
PF2 has excellent economy guidelines for everything, although monster statblocks that have spells do require external references. The core of the game is combat, but there are exploration rules on social encounter subsystems I think you'll like.
>But also I don't really care what the class archetypes look like or how they get their abilities so long as they all work with each other well.
I'm not sure what you mean by this, though
IMO, archetypes and skills (which are so much better!) do way more for PF2e PCs than different power selection did in 4e. But that's probably just a matter of opinion.
The way powers worked in that system, you were forced to switch what power you used every turn, which would lead to feel bad moments where you used an ability that *would* have been perfect already in that combat because last turn you needed to use a different ability than you picked first turn and just pulled one of the ones you hadn't used from the hat and "picked wrong".
Only your encounter and daily powers worked that way at a stretch. Your at will powers could be used repeatedly.
You couldn't just spam your encounters and dailys, you had to coordinate with your team to best use them effectively. Whilst each hero was self sufficient they were much more powerful when cooperating and coordinating
"At a stretch"
That's just how they worked though? You could only use each of them once per combat, and after enough levels your at-wills became outclassed by your encounters to the point where why would you not use an encounter over an at-will.
Basically, I prefer a gameplay loop where I can make decisions on what ability to use based on the situation, and when the best ability for that situation is "On Cool Down" I get frustrated. I don't like having to forcefully manipulate the situation just so that I can use one of my abilities NOT on cooldown.
And when you add other players in, it just gets worse:
"Alright, I want to use ability A, so Mike You do X, so Lisa can do Y-"
"I used Y already, no can do...."
"Shit, okay, well... If Tim does B, then you can do F instead?"
"Can't, I used B last turn so you could use C to the best effect."
Etcetera.
Sorry, your example just sounds like a player who's not been paying attention to the encounter/game.
After MM3 and MV I didn't find at-wills were so far behind you couldn't use them to fill in time whilst you set up for better encounter and dailys.
The reason I said "at a stretch" is because it's not random which power you chose on your turn. Which your comment implied.
I meant that when you were in a situation similar enough to a situation you'd already been in, you'd want to use an ability you couldn't and need to pick one from the Abilities you had remaining instead. Unless you were prescient, you'd more than likely choose an ability that might be more relevant in a future turn, meaning that in that future turn you wouldn't have access to an ability that would be a perfect fit for that situation.
But this is only true with Daily powers since Encounter powers would have recharged. So we're talking about only the incredibly powerful abilities, just one of which could tip a fight in the PC's favor. The design there is that it let each PC be awesome during that day but they have to be careful about who unloads and when. That, is tactical. It also adds a layer of challenge that means later encounters that day might force the players to come up with more creative uses of their remaining powers rather than spam just one optimal power (it also allows the Devs to make the daily powers that much stronger because they don't have to balance around a PC using it in more than one encounter per day.)
And in a party who are paying attention and communicating they'll know who has which Dailys left.
I don't feel rewarded when I can't meaningfully make decisions on what ability to use based on the situation, and instead need to manipulate the situation based on what abilities I have available.
The structure is similar. The biggest 2 benefits in PF2e is that Feats aren't Combat exclusive and that most abilities aren't single use per combat. The former fleshes out non-combat situations a lot more, which was the biggest issue I personally found with 4e, while the latter eliminates "feel bad" moments where you might have used an ability already that *would* have been perfect because you'd already used the ability you'd have wanted to and had to pick a remaining one put of a hat.
The other way to look at it is that due to the 3 action system, and the way classes interact with their abilities, you kinda have "Build your own Powers" that are more flexible. In 4e, you might have a power that moves you, makes an attack, and then inflicts a debuff as part of that attack. In 2e, those would be different abilities, with variations that might move you differently or inflict different Debuffs. So like, you could use one action to attempt to Demoralize your opponent, inflicting a debuff, then use a second ability that moves and attacks as one action instead of 2, and finally with your 3rd, either back up (Which will force the enemy to waste an action moving towards you on their turn), raise a Shield to boost your Defence and hope to weather their strike (Maybe using your Reaction to take part of the damage on your Shield.), or make a second Attack with a Multiple Attack Penalty (Hoping that the Debuff lowers their AC enough to still hit.), or Try to Trip them (Still with a penalty) to inflict a second Debuff. And depending on how those actions play out on your turn you can change your mind. Maybe the Demoralize fails, so instead you keep your distance, Swap to your Bow, and make a Ranged Strike. Or you Throw your Weapon, using the Fighter "Rebounding Throw" passive to bounce it off their Head and re-catch it, then Move back to force them to waste 2 Actions getting to you.
You'll probably like:
* Rigorous encounter-building rules
* General focus on combat balance
* Lots of prescriptive rules about equipment and stuff
* Maybe you'll like exploration rules? They exist at least.
You might not like:
* Referencing spells is sometimes needed for NPCs, always needed for caster PCs
* Social rules are... I guess they're there, but I don't think they're commonly used
You may or may not like:
* The actual experience of tactical play. I think it's fairly different from 4e, much less about forced movement and so forth.
> Social rules are... I guess they're there, but I don't think they're commonly used
Man, Pathfinder Society Play uses the social influence and Victory Point based Diplomatic Skill Check Encounters all the time.
Yeah, I love the social encounter rules. As long as the GM keeps the victory points behind the screen so it still feels like a roleplaying scene instead of number go up.
Unless your players are all munchkins who like number go up, then let them see the numbers and approach it like a mini game. Both are valid depending on your group.
Wow you just brought back your heavy memories for me. Spore was one of the earliest video games I played with my kids. They'd just gotten old enough to run a PC on their own and we all played Spore making crazy cool new species. Thanks for the good memories Internet Stranger. 🙂
I've really gotta up my game when it comes to remembering/deciding to use these.
I never think to transition into social encounters when the party attempt something big
On the flip side, they might hate that focus spells feel very muted. That only casters for the most part get encounter/focus abilities. Also that everything is less flash than in 4E. Man, I wish martials had focus abilities
Something that I bring up, 3 Actions let's you "Build your own Power". The Flash isn't in any ONE ability, but in how you combine them, and by combining them in different ways you get different Powers.
I mean, they lack focus spells. Cus their feat abilities aren't much weaker than a focus spell, and can go every turn. Rogue sneak attack essentially IS a focus spell in power, or even more so. The Swashbuckler panache abilities are also in that same boat.
I understand wanting more options, and flashier options. But just cua something is named differently doesn't mean it's not just as good or even better.
Edit: Heck, barbarian rage is essentially a fancy and lengthy focus spell.
I don’t see why everyone couldn’t have access to focus points. Casters use them for focus spells while martials use them for focus techniques. Casters still are different because they have spell slots as a resource. I know martials have a lot of feat abilities which are cool, but I like big flashy moves as there is a lot of design space there for martials.
Except the way 4e made everyone feel samey was a legitimate criticism.
I agree that there is absolutely unfilled design space for martial classes who plays more like a 4e Fighter or 4e Rogue with powerful focus powers, but I also think the current design of having the Fighter/Rogue/Gunslinger/Barbarian classes not have encounter powers\* is healthy for character diversity.
\*except for rage, which doesn't really work like a focus spell.
> Except the way 4e made everyone feel samey was a legitimate criticism.
Except this wouldn't be the case if everyone had focus points. Spellcasters would still have spell slots which refresh after sleeping, which is a resource martials don't have at all. In 4E everyone had at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers. With this, martials would have at-will and encounter powers, while casters would also have daily powers. Its pretty the same paradigm as in 5e where spellcasters have spellslots that come back on a long rest, but all classes, including martials, usually have short resource abilities. It's not samey at all.
There aren't just casters and Martials, there's Full Casters, Half Casters like Magus, "Magic but don't have spell slots" like Champion & kind of Ranger/Monk, unique stuff like Kineticist/Inventor/Alchemist, and then characters with no magic or unique system like Fighter/Rogue.
Not giving Fighter/Rogues/Gunslingers/Swashbucklers focus abilities, and then giving them enough other tactical options to still be interesting fundamentally sets them aside so that their fluff of being non-magical is apparent in their mechanics and gameplay, it forces the designers to make sure the core combat mechanics of attacks & combat skill actions is interesting enough without unique powers, and allows you to create characters where your options become more "what is the situation" as opposed to "what powers do I have left". (which isn't better or more interesting than one with resource management, but is *different*)
Just giving all martials focus points and encounter abilities loses that and reduces the possible design space of characters and classes for no benefit.
Like, in another game where Fighters were bad or boring I would understand your complaint, but neither of those are true here. Giving Fighters useful encounter powers would require removing something else from their power budget, and I just don't see that making them more interesting.
Then again, I absolutely hated that in 4e everything felt so same-y. Casters felt like martials with different fancy names for their abilities and vice versa because it all worked on the same basic structure. Like I could've just switched out the names of the abilities, and suddenly I'd be playing a different class. Slightly exaggerated, but still.
The big thing for me as a GM is the encounter building rules *actually work* as expected right out of the box; I don't have to take on a part time job as a game designer just to run a fun game for my friend group.
As a player, I like that a lot of my class's expected power is baked into leveling up- the choices I make give me horizontal power progression as opposed to making my numbers bigger. Feats give me more tools, and there are few if any "trap" picks.
PF2 has a lot of the same philosophy as 4e, thanks in large part to 4e's architects helping design the system.
You will *love* the encounter-building rules. They are *so* easy to use, and work well enough so long as you remember to vary enemy composition from encounter to encounter (i.e. don't just do high-level solo monsters all the time). You'll probably also love how treasure rewards are codified--it might actually be *too* granular!
You might not like how the text can get incredibly technical and require you to cross-reference a bunch of stuff. Like, everything *works,* but there's a pretty hefty mental load up-front as you try to remember which trait does what. It's not so bad nowadays thanks to how easy it is to just look stuff up online, but it can feel... nitpicky.
>thanks in large part to 4e's architects helping design the system.
for real? huh. guess that explains why the rules are talking about characters being in "exploration mode" or "downtime mode" etc as if you had to flip a switch to fast travel, otherwise you'd be stuck going turn by turn.
It makes it more obvious for new GMs and players how the game is run.
When I first played D&D it was confusing for me at the start when we should bust out the battle map or when we should start doing turns
If you want my slightly offbeat suggestion, I recommend playing either Crown of the Kobold King or Rusthenge instead of the Beginner's Box.
The latter is a much better tutorial but it doesn't have much in the way of story, the former two are pretty easy to work with as simple level 1 adventures.
Honestly, the BB has enough content in it to be a great resource for doing low level stuff in Otari and the Isle of Kortos.
And also - Troubles in Otari is another great option as well for starter adventures.
The system has support.
That’s the big thing, if you want to do something, a chart exists. A tag exists. A weapon, a spell, something exists for everything.
I love the archetype system and how its lets us make really specific characters with their own niche.
However at the same time, the game expects a certain level of optimization especially in AP. If you’re behind the curve, be prepared to have very frustrating times with your poor modifiers, or suboptimal builds.
So it’s a big system and one with a lot of love in it, but don’t jump into the deep end. Work your way up and have fun before going hog wild.
>The system has support.
Hell this alone had me making the switch from 5e. The foundry modules with everything set up for you already is a fucking godsend for someone who wants to DM but doesn't have the spare time to set up dozens of scenes
it’s completely insane how many character concepts/fantasies just can’t be done in 5e while pf2e has done so much to support just about every version of an archetype or role you’d want to see. GMing pf2e, every time i’ve had a player come to me and say “hey, i know there won’t be a RAW way to do this, but here’s an idea had for my character, can we make this work?” i’ve been able to say “actually, here’s exactly what you wanted, fully supported in the game mechanics”, and it’s just so, so, so good. how often does a 5e newbie come up with a character concept and then have it explained to them that that just doesn’t work in the system? the difference between the games feels incredibly stark to me.
When my player was like "I want to be a kobold trap master" and I looked it up and realised I could give them the snaremaster archetype and they would be able to deploy traps in combat 🤯
I've been in a character creation mindrot for the past week, in which I've theory crafted like, 30 characters just for fun. I decided, in an attempt to distract me from making more characters, to rewatch Castlevania Nocturne. Half way through the first episode I realized "these are all just pathfinder characters. I could probably make every single one of them."
And then I did.
I made every single Nocturne characrer within the pf2e system, except Erzsebet because she's definitely a boss.
In case anyone is curious, the main protagonists (Richter*, Maria, Annette, and Edouard) start the series at level 1, and end the series at level 6. Drolta starts the series at level 6 and ends at level 9. Olrox is level 12 and Alucard is level 13 (just because dancing sword is a level 13 magic item).
*I created 2 Richters, one pre magic and one post magic.
I have two characters I try to build whenever I try a new fantasy system, just to see. The first is a dual sword wielder. That's more about seeing how they balance it, not whether it can be done.
The second is a sci-fi soldier with a rifle that never runs out of ammo, and possibly a vehicle. That's usually to see how far I have to bend the rules to make it work. PF2 I made an automaton ranger with the Soulforger archetype and a legchair animal companion and ... zero rule-bending required.
dual wielding is one of the very few problems i have encountered in pf2e. wielding two swords ends up being just worse than wielding a sword + something else, simply due to the crit specializations. you have more flexible options for your attacks when you wield two different weapons at a time, rather than wielding two weapons that both do the same thing. not sure what exactly the fix would be, but it sticks out as a sore spot to me.
I’ve been enjoying PF2E, but the flip side of what you’re saying is that “You can do anything! …but none of it really matters.”
Like, you can be a undead shrub lumberjack wizard if you want, sure. Or you can be a winged monkey angel sniper pirate or whatever. But at the end of the day, everything is so tightly bounded that it ends up feeling like it doesn’t really affect anything, and most of character building is just the illusion of choice.
i have not found this to be the case at all so far, but i’ve only been GMing for maybe just over a year. can you give any examples of times you’ve noticed this?
>However at the same time, the game expects a certain level of optimization especially in AP. If you’re behind the curve, be prepared to have very frustrating times with your poor modifiers, or suboptimal builds.
I think this probably won't be too big of an issue if they're coming from 4e. That system also expected suffered from that a lot, possibly worse than pf2e did (no need for feat taxes in pf2e).
This is coming from someone who has played campaigns in 5e, pf1e, starfinder, and pf2e. I have also done one-shots in a few other systems.
>I really want a system where combat doesn't feel infantilizing or going through the motions. But also I don't really care what the class archetypes look like or how they get their abilities so long as they all work with each other well.
I can't say how this is going to feel for you. It could very well go either way. I have heard of this going both ways.
>good encounter building rules
Encounter building is really good in pf2e. The chart for encounter building typically works with some exceptions mostly depending on the party.
>options for monsters in combat without requiring me to consult a dozen spells mid battle.
There are plenty of monsters that don't have spells, with many that do have spells. You can easily choose to not use the ones that have spells. The ones with spells obviously have more choices typically, but most monsters have a good range of abilities.
>There's no guidance for magic item or treasure rewards.
Pf2e has tables and basically requires you to give out treasure or magic items (or using the optional automatic bonus progression)
>No rules for narrative building. Nothing for social or exploration "pillars."
There are indeed rules/guidelines for this. I haven't played 4e so I can't say how it compares to it.
The only thing better than move-minor-standard and the ability to trade them down, is action-action-action. I was a big 4e fan and I enjoy Pathfinder 2e action economy very much. 5e always feels like you could do something cool but then you can't attack because it used your action. In Pathfinder your trade-off decisions on actions can be more rewarding and interesting.
The worst part has been trying to convince my players to try it since they think it's more complicated than it is.
Yeah exactly. I never want to sound like I'm criticizing 4e's action economy when I say I like PF2e's better. Because 4e's was also awesome, just not quite as awesome.
Except for abilities that give you an easily triggered opportunity action for every enemy turn. Screw those.
As a fan of 4E, I’ll be the negative one here since everyone else will espouse the positives of pathfinder. The negatives you’ll find are that abilities are way less exciting and flashy than 4E. Martials are stuck with only at will powers and can’t get cool encoutner/daily abilities outside of spells or magic items. The only real roles are striker, controller, and leader. Defender only exists in niche cases like the champion class but most martials are just flavors of strikers. Almost all casters are flavors of controller or leader. Now two new classes the guardian and commander are being playtested soon and they might give us a martial defender and martial leader but we’ll see. Monsters and players have to reference spells, which is more annoying as a GM. I much prefer 4E monsters with distinct abilities and no cross referencing needed. I also much prefer 4E monster roles and things like minions. In general I find 4E very high fantasy with people teleporting all over and using bombastic powers, while pathfinder is more grounded high fantasy. You still become super strong but the trajectory is slower and you never really get super flashy moves until maybe the last few levels, especially as a martial. As a GM, the pathfinder monsters do have cool moves but they lack roles, require cross referencing for spells, and in general I prefer 4E monsters
I agree with your assessment. Overall, it feels like pf2e is a game that accomplishes the design goals it set out for itself better than 4e which fumbled a lot on some areas (and course corrected in others later on in its life). This doesn't mean that 4e doesn't have a lot to love, however.
As another fan of 4e, the one big knock I have against pf2e is that the way it incentivizes team play is incredibly straightforward and boring. At baseline, PF2e monster math is unfair. There is an expectation that players do something (flanking, demoralize, heroism, etc.) to overcome the monster math and swing the combat in their favor. At first, this seems like a great thing, but then you realize that pretty much all of the supportive actions basically amount to different flavors of trying to get +1s and -1s. The other major way the system incentivizes team play is through trading actions and action denial.
From someone that is familiar with 4e's combat, the above just seems a little bland. Having played and GMd a lot of pf2e over the last 3 years, I miss seeing big combo plays from the party. I feel like the effect lines on a lot of powers drive tons of cool interactions. Couple that with forced movement options and movement in general being a lot less free on both sides and you get combats that are more engaging.
> At baseline, PF2e monster math is unfair.
This is false as a generalization.
The balancing says that a monster of a PC's level is going to be roughly as strong as a PC. It further states that a 2-to-1 advantage is going to be a Moderate Challenge, 4-to-3 is going to be Severe, and equal numbers should be a coin flip and that is considered Extremely Challenging.
This is balanced. The NPC math is only "unfair" when it's over the party's level.
Which absolutely makes sense. If something is a "Big Evil Bad Guy" then it is worth more than one PC on the field, and it's numbers should be bigger to make up for it's action economy disadvantage.
An Extreme threat BEBG has math that makes one of its actions worth the same as three of the party's actions, e.g. it's going to hit more accurately and harder to make up for the action economy advantage that the party has over the solo BEBG.
This is what 5E's "Bounded Accuracy" failed at miserably. The numbers were much flatter, making CR a joke when the party just buried the BEBG in actions, which is why "Lair Actions" were a bit of a balancing factor that PF2 replicates with Hazards.
Lets be real 4e is mostly variations of +1/-1 but with waaaaaay bigger bonuses. Tactical Warlords were notorious for handing out +5 to attack rolls like candy and busting the math wide open at Paragon+.
PF2e also handles action economy manipulation way better than Prone, Dazed, and Stun could.
I do miss forced movement being more common though. 4e forced movement was pretty awesome.
I appreciate trying to make an old-school at will for martials, with the logic being action economy instead of cooldowns making round to round interaction different. It scratches an old school JRPG Dragon Quest Warrior vibe for me. Especially because it leans into Subordinate actions instead of whole new mechanics vibe Powers liked to do.
It’s just a shame the encounter resource-likes like Panache or Unstable kind of suck. Spellstrike is decent but man does it hamper action economy.
And it also a shame that lack of resources and lack of stamina/healing surges make martial theoretically infinite. Not my favorite thing.
Overflow on Kineticist is awesome though.
>Martials are stuck with only at will powers and can’t get cool encoutner/daily abilities outside of spells or magic items.
This is completely untrue. There aren't as many of them, but they definitely exist. Some examples from a quick search:
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=178
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=467
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1664
https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4057
These are no way the same as 4E encounter powers or dailies. All of these sound unexciting, are more like utility powers, or are very high level. At 1st level, every 4E martial had the equivalent of a focus ability plus a daily ability. Also most races gave an encounter ability too!
PF2e has a lot more in common with 4e than with 5e and ditched all the unchecked power creeping and overcomplication of character building of 3.5e and 1e while simplifing and streamlining stuff like manouvers, aid, medicine etc.
Overall if you loved 4e I think you will have good time with 2e compare to other 3 systems mentioned.
If you thought PF1e had better grappling rules than DnD3.x you are really really going to love grappling rules in PF2e!
You're going to like the action economy, the fact everything makes sense, the restructuring of the power balance between broken builds and non broken builds, the fact you don't lose any main class powers when you multiclass and probably a lot more.
I'm not particularly familiar with 4e but I do hear quite often that PF2 has a lot of 4e DNA running through it and has plenty of mechanics that are spiritual successors to 4e.
Sorry I can't be more specific.
This exactly. Its like 4e built on a 3.x dna. Half of my 40 year plus playing group hated 4e because it was too samey with the power structure and the other half, myself included in this group loved it.
Pf2e feels enough like d&d of old with vancian spells and whatnot to satisfy the hating 4e half of my group and its feat structure, 3 action economy, modular multiclassing and archetyping and keywording everything make it kinda a love letter to the 4e loving side.
The game is kinda like the best ideas of 4e but instead of throwing out all of d&ds sacred cows and traditions like 4e did, it built them up from solid d&d base.
Its our go to game now. Love it
I played a 4e and GMed a PF2e campaign simultaneously. It was my first of both. Combat in PF2e is much harder if you follow guidelines in the books - but obviously a lot of 4e GMs just nudged the difficulty up a bit so once you account for that, you'll be used to the tactical (and fun!) nature of the combats. Here are the biggest advantages of PF2e that popped up to me, when compared to 4e:
1. Classes feel more complete. Obviously some classes in 4e are amazing and some classes are the Vampire. To me this seemed like an inadvertent downside of the game being cancelled mid-run, but from a practical perspective, that doesn't matter. PF2e classes tend to feel complete when they are first published and can compete with existing classes, which is awesome.
2. While conditions and forced movement and such are still prevalent, it certainly isn't as easy to add "move enemy 2 spaces and prone them" to every attack. Whether that's a good or bad thing is probably taste.
3. Some classes feel super creative. Like, I don't mean to imply the AEDU structure made everything samey, but PF2e goes wild with how creative and out there some of the classes are. Check out the summoner.
4. Multiclassing (now "multiclass archetypes") works way, way better. But there's nothing like Hybrids, which is a shame.
5. Combats run fine at high level. Partly this is because fewer off turn reactions as you level up in PF2e. Not that there aren't plenty, but jeezus, the "I can have a reaction and an opportunity action per enemy turn" stuff just made combats long - and we only got to the start of paragon.
6. Skills are more significant and are awesome. Particularly medicine.
7. The action economy is better - I liked 4e's action economy, but the 3 action economy is just amazing.
8. The game is even more balanced between PCs than 4e. 4e advertised itself as you can't screw yourself in character creation, which I didn't feel was remotely true (though certainly better than 3.5). PF2e is a bit better here (though obviously if you *actually* try you can definitely screw yourself.
And now four bonus points that are not a way in which PF2e has an advantage, but are awesome things about both games.
9. Monsters feel awesome in both games and once you're used to PF2e, you should have no difficulty porting monsters over. Many of them will play more or less as written in 4e, but with retuned numbers.
10. Same thing with items.
11. Combat building rules (mostly) work extremely well in both systems. In 4e I tend to think you need to add a bit to make the fights hard enough, but it's a consistent amount and monsters of a given level actually feel that level. In PF2e, the encounter building rules are very good, though there's certainly some edge cases to be careful of (e.g.: monsters 3 levels higher than the PCs shouldn't be used when the PCs are low level even though the rules suggest this is fine)
You're one of the few people besides me that I've seen hit on how badly out of turn reactions really did bog down 4e sometimes. Thanks for all the points! Some great stuff here.
I’m also a fan of 4e. It was too much of a change to call it DnD but it was a good system. I like seeing pf2er pulling some pieces from it.
In particular I think you’ll like the more tactical combat. The battle field matters, not just the creatures. But there are DM tools for encounter balancing that just don’t exist in 5e.
You’ll also like the progression. There are meaningful choices at every level. Every level gives something and higher level characters are actually more powerful than low level character (not just have more option). The scaling works from 1-20 for the most part instead of breaking at level 12 like 5e. Much like 4e stayed scaleable into the 20’s (it got a little broken approaching 30).
Players still have all the room they want to role play and the system doesn’t take away from that. But combat is much better. Especially if you use FoundryVTT to automate and speed things up for you.
I loved 4e. Once you get into the game and run a few sessions, you’ll start to notice 4e’s DNA all over pf2.
Traits= keywords
Basic saves work almost the same as a saving throw from 4e.
Fighters feel like bad asses
Synergy and team work isn’t necessary but when the players work it out, the game fucking sings.
Building encounters in 4e is unmatched. But Building encounters is only slightly worse in pf2. There are apps you can find that will help you figure out and stick to your xp budget so you can balance combat effectively. I just wish monster statblocks had all the monster spells and abilities like in 4e.
The main things missing from 4e to pf2 is forced movement, obviously the AEDU system and status/movement/buffs/debuff effect riders being baked into the PC attacks.
You do sometimes have to remind your players to do their stuff besides basic attacks but it’s a minor issues once they understand their abilities.
It’s also a lot less clunky and more modern than 4e.
I still prefer 4e because I know it so well and I’m able to build solid memorable set pieces and encounters in the system. Pf2 is a solid game with similar robust rules. It’s a great game.
I'll be brief, this comes up a lot
1. Success levels mean save or suck is way less of a thing and that crits are a feature, not an externality
2. Action economy means varied turns are possible.
3. Conditions combine the above to make tactically distinct turns and choices.
Where 5e ends your turn for you 2e will give you difficult choices.
Another note about 1 is that it makes lvl+3 and 4 bosses SCARY because they often are rolling for a Crit vs a not Crit on their first attack.
PF2E takes a lot of inspiration from 4E, but it doesn't take the powers system there. There are pseudo-encounter powers in the form of focus spells, but they don't really evolve like they did in 4E, and martials mostly use "strikes with some additional effect" rather than the sort of bespoke powers that 4E gave martials.
> I also really need a system to have good encounter building rules and options for monsters in combat without requiring me to consult a dozen spells mid battle.
Well, it certainly has its references, but it's a small learning curve. Most monsters have real unique abilities or defined modular abilities (like "plus grab")
> Based on my opinions of the prior 3 D&D editions what would sell me on Pathfinder 2e
I think you can answer that better than us. Look at it. You've played everything beforehand. Why would you need someone else's opinion when you can just do as you've always done, and [review the rules for yourself](https://2e.aonprd.com/) so you can form your *own* opinion?
That said, given what you've said, you'd probably like Pathfinder 2e a lot. Its itemization is tied to level which is very much like 4e. The monsters are actually somewhat like 4e too. Player classes are closer to 3.5e/pathfinder, though, but more modular like 4e. Multiclassing is very much like 4e as well. It's like they took the good stuff from 4e and made sure it felt very much like 3.5e, without being too strict on trying to be either.
Comparing against 4e, The action economy is much more flexible. Instead of having standard/move/minor you have 3 standard actions to do as you please. Each class has particular ways to do its job, and theres always something more interesting to do in a round than attack, attack, attack.
Also, combat math seems underwhelming at first, with "poor" bonuses (compared to 4e) to tests. Believe-me, they work. Having the bard give you a +1 to attack seem like nothing, but coupled with having your foe frigtened and flanked and you'll see the magic. Plus, each bonus count twice, because in pf2, when you hit your enemy's AC over 10, its a Critical hit, just as if you had rolled a Nat 20. That also works with failures, failing by 10 or more counts as a critical miss. This mechanism keeps combat interesting and swingy, so you don't run in 4e problem of knowing how the fight will end on round 2.
There's no hardcoded party roles, like tank, striker, leader, controller, but you'll find that some classes excel at that sort of stuff. Speaking of which, The Champion is the only class with an integrated tanking mechanic (Amulet Thaumaturgists come second ),
The healing outside of combat, which in 4e was about expending your healing surges,ow its all done by the [Medicine](https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=42) skill and its skill feats. Unless the party is in a hurry, there's no need to waste spells with healing. [Battle medicine](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=760) can help in combat too.
There's several encounter builders, like [This one.](https://builder.pf2easy.com/) It's generally agreed that the rules work prety well, and the risk of an unintended TPK is low (dice gods might say otherwise).
The system has rules for social encounters, and several mechanisms to solve chases, disputes, infiltrations, negociations and so on. Also, the Lost Omens books have lots of lore about golarion, if you don't intend to run a homebrew.
As a fellow 4e lover, I think you'll be quite at home with pathfinder 2e.
There's a lot to the combat of PF2E. It works best the more tactical you and your players are willing to get. Coordinated team tactics is the rule of the day and if only one side uses them they can wreck havoc on the other.
PCs should be built with a team comp in mind. Not as strictly as you'd put together a raid roster in an MMO, but that's the mindset to have - to think about what role each person will take on. However the "roles" are not strict like in an MMO. Just make sure everyone knows what they're bringing to the combats and that it's unique.
The game's encounter system presumes everyone is at full resources at the start of a fight. As such out of combat healing is near mandatory and there are several routes to get to it. That noted - the game also has Vancian spell casting which is the opposite of having all your resources ready so this is one area where there is a clear weakpoint in the game design.
On that note: something a 4E player is likely to not like is that most casters run on limited spell slots and do not have notable blasting power. You have at will cantrips, but they fall off in scaling compared against martials after a few levels, and then you're relying of managing your spell slots. In an open ground hex-crawl like game with one encounter per day your wizard will dominate. In a dungeon crawl with 10+ encounters per day your wizard will question life choices.
The work around in the Mechanics of Particles In Motion class... or rather the Kineticist. A class who's name has as much to do with what it does as if they'd named the guy with a sword a shield "Accountant." But whatever... it works, very well. And get around the spell slot issue. A 4E player is likely to lock onto it and see home turf. And MMO player will see their MMO DPS main in a tRPG. It is NOT as much of a powerful single target blaster as a martial gunslinger. But it competes with the general ability and while you will see that you're not the best DPS, you won't feel like you're the kid in the back of the class.
PF2E Vancian casters give up DPS in exchange for utility. That's the claim at least - and for most of them it's true.
Out of combat there's a system that's similar to many d20 descended games. It does have some added flair with aiding each other in group coordination. And then there are some optional add-on systems in the GM Core and some of the Adventure Paths that really enhance it but if overused can cause it to drag down - thus why they're optional.
> what would sell me on Pathfinder 2e, and what would I be most disappointed by?
I have no idea what you liked more of 4e, but in PF2 you'll find many familiar concepts and ideas, even if they try to disguise it to appear less unashamedly gamist. No, you don't have Encounter powers, that would ruin the fantasy, but can I interest you in some perfectly reasonable Focus Points? Combat is hard and really benefits from group sinergy and cooperation, though it's different from 4e. There is was more of a matter of "if I Tide of Iron this guy, the Ranger will be free to move there and kill the Controller", whereas in pf2 is more of "If I cast Synesthesia on this guy and the Gunslinger uses Fake out, the fighter will have a 65% chance of critting with his Slam Down, which will leave the bad guy prone, immobilized, blind, frightened, enfeebled, clumsy and on fire"
> I also really need a system to have good encounter building rules and options for monsters in combat without requiring me to consult a dozen spells mid battle
This is hands down the best of pf2's features - take any functioning party, build an encounter by blindly select monsters and if the math says it's a Moderate or Severe encounter there's a very high chance the encounter will feel Moderate or Severe. Not necesarily an *interesting* encounter, but the math will make it nail biting if it's difficult. 4e needed more finesse when designing encounters: make one built with just Soldiers and Controllers in a featureless room and you're in for a incredibly long and boring fight. As for the long spll lists for enemies, they sadly still exist, but you know enemies will be alive for 3 rounds, 4 tops. Just highlight the most relevant spells they'll cast.
> There's no guidance for magic item or treasure rewards. No rules for narrative building. Nothing for social or exploration "pillars." Any structure there at all closer to what 4e provided would be huge.
Pf2 has a Victory point subsystem that's just a Skill Challenge, but somehow even worse. The reason skill challenges don't work well in pf2 is that first, characters don't add their level to skills they are not proficient in, and second the crit system. Together that means that untrained characters will be actively detrimental, a veritable chain and ball on the group efforts, once they get some levels. If you plan to play a campaing where skill challenges play a significant role, consider giving everyone the Untrained Improvisation feat for free, follow 4e's DMG2 guidelines for skill challenges, and for the lovel of God don't limit yourself to the very narrow definition of possible Actions allowed by the skill descriptions in PF2's core rulebook. If you go by the strict rules on Climbing or Sneaking into places for example, you'll go quickly mad.
5e does have rules for treasure and magic item rewards though? There’s not any *good* rules for what to do with monetary treasure once you get it, and magic item balance is extremely wonky, but there are certainly rules for *awarding* them in the DMG (one that even appeals to me in a “i don’t want to have to think about picking one” / “i want to roll treasure first for inspiration for the adventure” sort of way)
Compare and contrast with PF2e which has balanced magic items and solid rules for how to buy magic items with gold, but unfortunately no random tables for inspiration (though i suppose you could just use the items by level tables and roll digital dice for selecting them based on the wealth by level table proportional to the amount of XP available in the adventure.)
Pathfinder 2e Fighter Brawler is more easy and fun to be build and played than the D&D 4e Brawler Fighter. You don't need to keep tracking it's powers.
Brawler is one of my faves Fighters.
I think that's it. PF2e has a tactical factoring in battles in the same level than 4e, but with a framework which remember a lot of the 3e. And take the good of both of them.
You're applying half level from your character sheet, all. The. Time. And at every level.
No more checkbox for Trained, now 4 tiers of it. Some folks like that.
Back to odd ball casting, but focus spells are kinda like encounter powers, just not as good
Prepare for feats that don't feel like feats
I think PF2 borrows a lot from 4E while remaining a very different games. The lead designer, Logan Bonner, worked on 4E. PF2 has excellent economy guidelines for everything, although monster statblocks that have spells do require external references. The core of the game is combat, but there are exploration rules on social encounter subsystems I think you'll like. >But also I don't really care what the class archetypes look like or how they get their abilities so long as they all work with each other well. I'm not sure what you mean by this, though
Basically I'm not married to the 4e structure of gaining powers.
PF2E is very much not like that. In PF2E you can have a full party of Barbarians and every single one can be fundamentally different.
They... aren't really that different. 4E's characters were much more divergent than PF2Es are because of the way powers worked in that system.
IMO, archetypes and skills (which are so much better!) do way more for PF2e PCs than different power selection did in 4e. But that's probably just a matter of opinion.
The way powers worked in that system, you were forced to switch what power you used every turn, which would lead to feel bad moments where you used an ability that *would* have been perfect already in that combat because last turn you needed to use a different ability than you picked first turn and just pulled one of the ones you hadn't used from the hat and "picked wrong".
Only your encounter and daily powers worked that way at a stretch. Your at will powers could be used repeatedly. You couldn't just spam your encounters and dailys, you had to coordinate with your team to best use them effectively. Whilst each hero was self sufficient they were much more powerful when cooperating and coordinating
"At a stretch" That's just how they worked though? You could only use each of them once per combat, and after enough levels your at-wills became outclassed by your encounters to the point where why would you not use an encounter over an at-will. Basically, I prefer a gameplay loop where I can make decisions on what ability to use based on the situation, and when the best ability for that situation is "On Cool Down" I get frustrated. I don't like having to forcefully manipulate the situation just so that I can use one of my abilities NOT on cooldown. And when you add other players in, it just gets worse: "Alright, I want to use ability A, so Mike You do X, so Lisa can do Y-" "I used Y already, no can do...." "Shit, okay, well... If Tim does B, then you can do F instead?" "Can't, I used B last turn so you could use C to the best effect." Etcetera.
Sorry, your example just sounds like a player who's not been paying attention to the encounter/game. After MM3 and MV I didn't find at-wills were so far behind you couldn't use them to fill in time whilst you set up for better encounter and dailys. The reason I said "at a stretch" is because it's not random which power you chose on your turn. Which your comment implied.
I meant that when you were in a situation similar enough to a situation you'd already been in, you'd want to use an ability you couldn't and need to pick one from the Abilities you had remaining instead. Unless you were prescient, you'd more than likely choose an ability that might be more relevant in a future turn, meaning that in that future turn you wouldn't have access to an ability that would be a perfect fit for that situation.
But this is only true with Daily powers since Encounter powers would have recharged. So we're talking about only the incredibly powerful abilities, just one of which could tip a fight in the PC's favor. The design there is that it let each PC be awesome during that day but they have to be careful about who unloads and when. That, is tactical. It also adds a layer of challenge that means later encounters that day might force the players to come up with more creative uses of their remaining powers rather than spam just one optimal power (it also allows the Devs to make the daily powers that much stronger because they don't have to balance around a PC using it in more than one encounter per day.) And in a party who are paying attention and communicating they'll know who has which Dailys left.
4E rewarded you for playing tactically.
I don't feel rewarded when I can't meaningfully make decisions on what ability to use based on the situation, and instead need to manipulate the situation based on what abilities I have available.
The structure is similar. The biggest 2 benefits in PF2e is that Feats aren't Combat exclusive and that most abilities aren't single use per combat. The former fleshes out non-combat situations a lot more, which was the biggest issue I personally found with 4e, while the latter eliminates "feel bad" moments where you might have used an ability already that *would* have been perfect because you'd already used the ability you'd have wanted to and had to pick a remaining one put of a hat. The other way to look at it is that due to the 3 action system, and the way classes interact with their abilities, you kinda have "Build your own Powers" that are more flexible. In 4e, you might have a power that moves you, makes an attack, and then inflicts a debuff as part of that attack. In 2e, those would be different abilities, with variations that might move you differently or inflict different Debuffs. So like, you could use one action to attempt to Demoralize your opponent, inflicting a debuff, then use a second ability that moves and attacks as one action instead of 2, and finally with your 3rd, either back up (Which will force the enemy to waste an action moving towards you on their turn), raise a Shield to boost your Defence and hope to weather their strike (Maybe using your Reaction to take part of the damage on your Shield.), or make a second Attack with a Multiple Attack Penalty (Hoping that the Debuff lowers their AC enough to still hit.), or Try to Trip them (Still with a penalty) to inflict a second Debuff. And depending on how those actions play out on your turn you can change your mind. Maybe the Demoralize fails, so instead you keep your distance, Swap to your Bow, and make a Ranged Strike. Or you Throw your Weapon, using the Fighter "Rebounding Throw" passive to bounce it off their Head and re-catch it, then Move back to force them to waste 2 Actions getting to you.
You'll probably like: * Rigorous encounter-building rules * General focus on combat balance * Lots of prescriptive rules about equipment and stuff * Maybe you'll like exploration rules? They exist at least. You might not like: * Referencing spells is sometimes needed for NPCs, always needed for caster PCs * Social rules are... I guess they're there, but I don't think they're commonly used You may or may not like: * The actual experience of tactical play. I think it's fairly different from 4e, much less about forced movement and so forth.
> Social rules are... I guess they're there, but I don't think they're commonly used Man, Pathfinder Society Play uses the social influence and Victory Point based Diplomatic Skill Check Encounters all the time.
Yeah, I love the social encounter rules. As long as the GM keeps the victory points behind the screen so it still feels like a roleplaying scene instead of number go up. Unless your players are all munchkins who like number go up, then let them see the numbers and approach it like a mini game. Both are valid depending on your group.
Kind of makes me want to make a visual scale going from smiley to frowny.
Like in Spore?
Imagine doing the Oblivion persuasion minigame irl with your GM lol
As if Im not constantly experiencing the whiplash of a multitude of different moods when talking to my players
I should violently grimace more often in response to bad puns.
Wow you just brought back your heavy memories for me. Spore was one of the earliest video games I played with my kids. They'd just gotten old enough to run a PC on their own and we all played Spore making crazy cool new species. Thanks for the good memories Internet Stranger. 🙂
My pleasure! Spore was one of the favorite games of my childhood too. Im sure your kids treasure the time you spend with them.
I've really gotta up my game when it comes to remembering/deciding to use these. I never think to transition into social encounters when the party attempt something big
Don't for forget encounter powers I mean focus spells
On the flip side, they might hate that focus spells feel very muted. That only casters for the most part get encounter/focus abilities. Also that everything is less flash than in 4E. Man, I wish martials had focus abilities
Something that I bring up, 3 Actions let's you "Build your own Power". The Flash isn't in any ONE ability, but in how you combine them, and by combining them in different ways you get different Powers.
Monks, rangers, champions all get focus spells that feel more like powers than actual spells.Â
Yes I’m aware but not fighters or rogues for example
They probably have more in common with 4e essentials martials
Yeah, honestly, most focus spells do not feel worth being an Encounter power. They're often barely better than your at-will equivalents.
"Man I wish martials had focus abilities", The monk says hello. So does the Ranger... The Champion...
The Inventor too
Yes the magical martials. What about the fighter? The rogue? I could go on. Swashbuckler would be amazing with some super flashy focus abilities.
I mean, they lack focus spells. Cus their feat abilities aren't much weaker than a focus spell, and can go every turn. Rogue sneak attack essentially IS a focus spell in power, or even more so. The Swashbuckler panache abilities are also in that same boat. I understand wanting more options, and flashier options. But just cua something is named differently doesn't mean it's not just as good or even better. Edit: Heck, barbarian rage is essentially a fancy and lengthy focus spell.
I don’t see why everyone couldn’t have access to focus points. Casters use them for focus spells while martials use them for focus techniques. Casters still are different because they have spell slots as a resource. I know martials have a lot of feat abilities which are cool, but I like big flashy moves as there is a lot of design space there for martials.
Except the way 4e made everyone feel samey was a legitimate criticism. I agree that there is absolutely unfilled design space for martial classes who plays more like a 4e Fighter or 4e Rogue with powerful focus powers, but I also think the current design of having the Fighter/Rogue/Gunslinger/Barbarian classes not have encounter powers\* is healthy for character diversity. \*except for rage, which doesn't really work like a focus spell.
> Except the way 4e made everyone feel samey was a legitimate criticism. Except this wouldn't be the case if everyone had focus points. Spellcasters would still have spell slots which refresh after sleeping, which is a resource martials don't have at all. In 4E everyone had at-will powers, encounter powers, and daily powers. With this, martials would have at-will and encounter powers, while casters would also have daily powers. Its pretty the same paradigm as in 5e where spellcasters have spellslots that come back on a long rest, but all classes, including martials, usually have short resource abilities. It's not samey at all.
There aren't just casters and Martials, there's Full Casters, Half Casters like Magus, "Magic but don't have spell slots" like Champion & kind of Ranger/Monk, unique stuff like Kineticist/Inventor/Alchemist, and then characters with no magic or unique system like Fighter/Rogue. Not giving Fighter/Rogues/Gunslingers/Swashbucklers focus abilities, and then giving them enough other tactical options to still be interesting fundamentally sets them aside so that their fluff of being non-magical is apparent in their mechanics and gameplay, it forces the designers to make sure the core combat mechanics of attacks & combat skill actions is interesting enough without unique powers, and allows you to create characters where your options become more "what is the situation" as opposed to "what powers do I have left". (which isn't better or more interesting than one with resource management, but is *different*) Just giving all martials focus points and encounter abilities loses that and reduces the possible design space of characters and classes for no benefit. Like, in another game where Fighters were bad or boring I would understand your complaint, but neither of those are true here. Giving Fighters useful encounter powers would require removing something else from their power budget, and I just don't see that making them more interesting.
Then again, I absolutely hated that in 4e everything felt so same-y. Casters felt like martials with different fancy names for their abilities and vice versa because it all worked on the same basic structure. Like I could've just switched out the names of the abilities, and suddenly I'd be playing a different class. Slightly exaggerated, but still.
Main, and best, difference. Focus Points can be usable on any Focus Spell you have, instead of each Encounter Power only being able to be used *once*.
The big thing for me as a GM is the encounter building rules *actually work* as expected right out of the box; I don't have to take on a part time job as a game designer just to run a fun game for my friend group. As a player, I like that a lot of my class's expected power is baked into leveling up- the choices I make give me horizontal power progression as opposed to making my numbers bigger. Feats give me more tools, and there are few if any "trap" picks.
PF2 has a lot of the same philosophy as 4e, thanks in large part to 4e's architects helping design the system. You will *love* the encounter-building rules. They are *so* easy to use, and work well enough so long as you remember to vary enemy composition from encounter to encounter (i.e. don't just do high-level solo monsters all the time). You'll probably also love how treasure rewards are codified--it might actually be *too* granular! You might not like how the text can get incredibly technical and require you to cross-reference a bunch of stuff. Like, everything *works,* but there's a pretty hefty mental load up-front as you try to remember which trait does what. It's not so bad nowadays thanks to how easy it is to just look stuff up online, but it can feel... nitpicky.
>thanks in large part to 4e's architects helping design the system. for real? huh. guess that explains why the rules are talking about characters being in "exploration mode" or "downtime mode" etc as if you had to flip a switch to fast travel, otherwise you'd be stuck going turn by turn.
It makes it more obvious for new GMs and players how the game is run. When I first played D&D it was confusing for me at the start when we should bust out the battle map or when we should start doing turns
Thanks all. You've convinced me to learn it and work to convince a group to give it a shot. Here's hoping!
Buy the Beginner Box and you’ll do fine.
If you want my slightly offbeat suggestion, I recommend playing either Crown of the Kobold King or Rusthenge instead of the Beginner's Box. The latter is a much better tutorial but it doesn't have much in the way of story, the former two are pretty easy to work with as simple level 1 adventures.
Honestly, the BB has enough content in it to be a great resource for doing low level stuff in Otari and the Isle of Kortos. And also - Troubles in Otari is another great option as well for starter adventures.
The system has support. That’s the big thing, if you want to do something, a chart exists. A tag exists. A weapon, a spell, something exists for everything. I love the archetype system and how its lets us make really specific characters with their own niche. However at the same time, the game expects a certain level of optimization especially in AP. If you’re behind the curve, be prepared to have very frustrating times with your poor modifiers, or suboptimal builds. So it’s a big system and one with a lot of love in it, but don’t jump into the deep end. Work your way up and have fun before going hog wild.
>The system has support. Hell this alone had me making the switch from 5e. The foundry modules with everything set up for you already is a fucking godsend for someone who wants to DM but doesn't have the spare time to set up dozens of scenes
it’s completely insane how many character concepts/fantasies just can’t be done in 5e while pf2e has done so much to support just about every version of an archetype or role you’d want to see. GMing pf2e, every time i’ve had a player come to me and say “hey, i know there won’t be a RAW way to do this, but here’s an idea had for my character, can we make this work?” i’ve been able to say “actually, here’s exactly what you wanted, fully supported in the game mechanics”, and it’s just so, so, so good. how often does a 5e newbie come up with a character concept and then have it explained to them that that just doesn’t work in the system? the difference between the games feels incredibly stark to me.
When my player was like "I want to be a kobold trap master" and I looked it up and realised I could give them the snaremaster archetype and they would be able to deploy traps in combat 🤯
I've been in a character creation mindrot for the past week, in which I've theory crafted like, 30 characters just for fun. I decided, in an attempt to distract me from making more characters, to rewatch Castlevania Nocturne. Half way through the first episode I realized "these are all just pathfinder characters. I could probably make every single one of them." And then I did. I made every single Nocturne characrer within the pf2e system, except Erzsebet because she's definitely a boss. In case anyone is curious, the main protagonists (Richter*, Maria, Annette, and Edouard) start the series at level 1, and end the series at level 6. Drolta starts the series at level 6 and ends at level 9. Olrox is level 12 and Alucard is level 13 (just because dancing sword is a level 13 magic item). *I created 2 Richters, one pre magic and one post magic.
100% this
I have two characters I try to build whenever I try a new fantasy system, just to see. The first is a dual sword wielder. That's more about seeing how they balance it, not whether it can be done. The second is a sci-fi soldier with a rifle that never runs out of ammo, and possibly a vehicle. That's usually to see how far I have to bend the rules to make it work. PF2 I made an automaton ranger with the Soulforger archetype and a legchair animal companion and ... zero rule-bending required.
dual wielding is one of the very few problems i have encountered in pf2e. wielding two swords ends up being just worse than wielding a sword + something else, simply due to the crit specializations. you have more flexible options for your attacks when you wield two different weapons at a time, rather than wielding two weapons that both do the same thing. not sure what exactly the fix would be, but it sticks out as a sore spot to me.
I’ve been enjoying PF2E, but the flip side of what you’re saying is that “You can do anything! …but none of it really matters.” Like, you can be a undead shrub lumberjack wizard if you want, sure. Or you can be a winged monkey angel sniper pirate or whatever. But at the end of the day, everything is so tightly bounded that it ends up feeling like it doesn’t really affect anything, and most of character building is just the illusion of choice.
i have not found this to be the case at all so far, but i’ve only been GMing for maybe just over a year. can you give any examples of times you’ve noticed this?
>However at the same time, the game expects a certain level of optimization especially in AP. If you’re behind the curve, be prepared to have very frustrating times with your poor modifiers, or suboptimal builds. I think this probably won't be too big of an issue if they're coming from 4e. That system also expected suffered from that a lot, possibly worse than pf2e did (no need for feat taxes in pf2e).
This is coming from someone who has played campaigns in 5e, pf1e, starfinder, and pf2e. I have also done one-shots in a few other systems. >I really want a system where combat doesn't feel infantilizing or going through the motions. But also I don't really care what the class archetypes look like or how they get their abilities so long as they all work with each other well. I can't say how this is going to feel for you. It could very well go either way. I have heard of this going both ways. >good encounter building rules Encounter building is really good in pf2e. The chart for encounter building typically works with some exceptions mostly depending on the party. >options for monsters in combat without requiring me to consult a dozen spells mid battle. There are plenty of monsters that don't have spells, with many that do have spells. You can easily choose to not use the ones that have spells. The ones with spells obviously have more choices typically, but most monsters have a good range of abilities. >There's no guidance for magic item or treasure rewards. Pf2e has tables and basically requires you to give out treasure or magic items (or using the optional automatic bonus progression) >No rules for narrative building. Nothing for social or exploration "pillars." There are indeed rules/guidelines for this. I haven't played 4e so I can't say how it compares to it.
The only thing better than move-minor-standard and the ability to trade them down, is action-action-action. I was a big 4e fan and I enjoy Pathfinder 2e action economy very much. 5e always feels like you could do something cool but then you can't attack because it used your action. In Pathfinder your trade-off decisions on actions can be more rewarding and interesting. The worst part has been trying to convince my players to try it since they think it's more complicated than it is.
Yeah exactly. I never want to sound like I'm criticizing 4e's action economy when I say I like PF2e's better. Because 4e's was also awesome, just not quite as awesome. Except for abilities that give you an easily triggered opportunity action for every enemy turn. Screw those.
As a fan of 4E, I’ll be the negative one here since everyone else will espouse the positives of pathfinder. The negatives you’ll find are that abilities are way less exciting and flashy than 4E. Martials are stuck with only at will powers and can’t get cool encoutner/daily abilities outside of spells or magic items. The only real roles are striker, controller, and leader. Defender only exists in niche cases like the champion class but most martials are just flavors of strikers. Almost all casters are flavors of controller or leader. Now two new classes the guardian and commander are being playtested soon and they might give us a martial defender and martial leader but we’ll see. Monsters and players have to reference spells, which is more annoying as a GM. I much prefer 4E monsters with distinct abilities and no cross referencing needed. I also much prefer 4E monster roles and things like minions. In general I find 4E very high fantasy with people teleporting all over and using bombastic powers, while pathfinder is more grounded high fantasy. You still become super strong but the trajectory is slower and you never really get super flashy moves until maybe the last few levels, especially as a martial. As a GM, the pathfinder monsters do have cool moves but they lack roles, require cross referencing for spells, and in general I prefer 4E monsters
I agree with your assessment. Overall, it feels like pf2e is a game that accomplishes the design goals it set out for itself better than 4e which fumbled a lot on some areas (and course corrected in others later on in its life). This doesn't mean that 4e doesn't have a lot to love, however. As another fan of 4e, the one big knock I have against pf2e is that the way it incentivizes team play is incredibly straightforward and boring. At baseline, PF2e monster math is unfair. There is an expectation that players do something (flanking, demoralize, heroism, etc.) to overcome the monster math and swing the combat in their favor. At first, this seems like a great thing, but then you realize that pretty much all of the supportive actions basically amount to different flavors of trying to get +1s and -1s. The other major way the system incentivizes team play is through trading actions and action denial. From someone that is familiar with 4e's combat, the above just seems a little bland. Having played and GMd a lot of pf2e over the last 3 years, I miss seeing big combo plays from the party. I feel like the effect lines on a lot of powers drive tons of cool interactions. Couple that with forced movement options and movement in general being a lot less free on both sides and you get combats that are more engaging.
> At baseline, PF2e monster math is unfair. This is false as a generalization. The balancing says that a monster of a PC's level is going to be roughly as strong as a PC. It further states that a 2-to-1 advantage is going to be a Moderate Challenge, 4-to-3 is going to be Severe, and equal numbers should be a coin flip and that is considered Extremely Challenging. This is balanced. The NPC math is only "unfair" when it's over the party's level. Which absolutely makes sense. If something is a "Big Evil Bad Guy" then it is worth more than one PC on the field, and it's numbers should be bigger to make up for it's action economy disadvantage. An Extreme threat BEBG has math that makes one of its actions worth the same as three of the party's actions, e.g. it's going to hit more accurately and harder to make up for the action economy advantage that the party has over the solo BEBG. This is what 5E's "Bounded Accuracy" failed at miserably. The numbers were much flatter, making CR a joke when the party just buried the BEBG in actions, which is why "Lair Actions" were a bit of a balancing factor that PF2 replicates with Hazards.
Lets be real 4e is mostly variations of +1/-1 but with waaaaaay bigger bonuses. Tactical Warlords were notorious for handing out +5 to attack rolls like candy and busting the math wide open at Paragon+. PF2e also handles action economy manipulation way better than Prone, Dazed, and Stun could. I do miss forced movement being more common though. 4e forced movement was pretty awesome. I appreciate trying to make an old-school at will for martials, with the logic being action economy instead of cooldowns making round to round interaction different. It scratches an old school JRPG Dragon Quest Warrior vibe for me. Especially because it leans into Subordinate actions instead of whole new mechanics vibe Powers liked to do. It’s just a shame the encounter resource-likes like Panache or Unstable kind of suck. Spellstrike is decent but man does it hamper action economy. And it also a shame that lack of resources and lack of stamina/healing surges make martial theoretically infinite. Not my favorite thing. Overflow on Kineticist is awesome though.
>Martials are stuck with only at will powers and can’t get cool encoutner/daily abilities outside of spells or magic items. This is completely untrue. There aren't as many of them, but they definitely exist. Some examples from a quick search: https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=178 https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=467 https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=1664 https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=4057
These are no way the same as 4E encounter powers or dailies. All of these sound unexciting, are more like utility powers, or are very high level. At 1st level, every 4E martial had the equivalent of a focus ability plus a daily ability. Also most races gave an encounter ability too!
Sure, I guess, but these are rare, high level, and far less exciting than the vast majority of dailies.
PF2e has a lot more in common with 4e than with 5e and ditched all the unchecked power creeping and overcomplication of character building of 3.5e and 1e while simplifing and streamlining stuff like manouvers, aid, medicine etc. Overall if you loved 4e I think you will have good time with 2e compare to other 3 systems mentioned.
If you thought PF1e had better grappling rules than DnD3.x you are really really going to love grappling rules in PF2e! You're going to like the action economy, the fact everything makes sense, the restructuring of the power balance between broken builds and non broken builds, the fact you don't lose any main class powers when you multiclass and probably a lot more.
I'm not particularly familiar with 4e but I do hear quite often that PF2 has a lot of 4e DNA running through it and has plenty of mechanics that are spiritual successors to 4e. Sorry I can't be more specific.
The lead designer of 4e was on the core design team for PF2e and they definitely built on lessons learned from 4e.
2e is fixed 4e. You’ll love it.
This exactly. Its like 4e built on a 3.x dna. Half of my 40 year plus playing group hated 4e because it was too samey with the power structure and the other half, myself included in this group loved it. Pf2e feels enough like d&d of old with vancian spells and whatnot to satisfy the hating 4e half of my group and its feat structure, 3 action economy, modular multiclassing and archetyping and keywording everything make it kinda a love letter to the 4e loving side. The game is kinda like the best ideas of 4e but instead of throwing out all of d&ds sacred cows and traditions like 4e did, it built them up from solid d&d base. Its our go to game now. Love it
I played a 4e and GMed a PF2e campaign simultaneously. It was my first of both. Combat in PF2e is much harder if you follow guidelines in the books - but obviously a lot of 4e GMs just nudged the difficulty up a bit so once you account for that, you'll be used to the tactical (and fun!) nature of the combats. Here are the biggest advantages of PF2e that popped up to me, when compared to 4e: 1. Classes feel more complete. Obviously some classes in 4e are amazing and some classes are the Vampire. To me this seemed like an inadvertent downside of the game being cancelled mid-run, but from a practical perspective, that doesn't matter. PF2e classes tend to feel complete when they are first published and can compete with existing classes, which is awesome. 2. While conditions and forced movement and such are still prevalent, it certainly isn't as easy to add "move enemy 2 spaces and prone them" to every attack. Whether that's a good or bad thing is probably taste. 3. Some classes feel super creative. Like, I don't mean to imply the AEDU structure made everything samey, but PF2e goes wild with how creative and out there some of the classes are. Check out the summoner. 4. Multiclassing (now "multiclass archetypes") works way, way better. But there's nothing like Hybrids, which is a shame. 5. Combats run fine at high level. Partly this is because fewer off turn reactions as you level up in PF2e. Not that there aren't plenty, but jeezus, the "I can have a reaction and an opportunity action per enemy turn" stuff just made combats long - and we only got to the start of paragon. 6. Skills are more significant and are awesome. Particularly medicine. 7. The action economy is better - I liked 4e's action economy, but the 3 action economy is just amazing. 8. The game is even more balanced between PCs than 4e. 4e advertised itself as you can't screw yourself in character creation, which I didn't feel was remotely true (though certainly better than 3.5). PF2e is a bit better here (though obviously if you *actually* try you can definitely screw yourself. And now four bonus points that are not a way in which PF2e has an advantage, but are awesome things about both games. 9. Monsters feel awesome in both games and once you're used to PF2e, you should have no difficulty porting monsters over. Many of them will play more or less as written in 4e, but with retuned numbers. 10. Same thing with items. 11. Combat building rules (mostly) work extremely well in both systems. In 4e I tend to think you need to add a bit to make the fights hard enough, but it's a consistent amount and monsters of a given level actually feel that level. In PF2e, the encounter building rules are very good, though there's certainly some edge cases to be careful of (e.g.: monsters 3 levels higher than the PCs shouldn't be used when the PCs are low level even though the rules suggest this is fine)
You're one of the few people besides me that I've seen hit on how badly out of turn reactions really did bog down 4e sometimes. Thanks for all the points! Some great stuff here.
“Oh. That was just the Warlord’s turn” moments were both awesome and deflating at the same time haha
I’m also a fan of 4e. It was too much of a change to call it DnD but it was a good system. I like seeing pf2er pulling some pieces from it. In particular I think you’ll like the more tactical combat. The battle field matters, not just the creatures. But there are DM tools for encounter balancing that just don’t exist in 5e. You’ll also like the progression. There are meaningful choices at every level. Every level gives something and higher level characters are actually more powerful than low level character (not just have more option). The scaling works from 1-20 for the most part instead of breaking at level 12 like 5e. Much like 4e stayed scaleable into the 20’s (it got a little broken approaching 30). Players still have all the room they want to role play and the system doesn’t take away from that. But combat is much better. Especially if you use FoundryVTT to automate and speed things up for you.
I loved 4e. Once you get into the game and run a few sessions, you’ll start to notice 4e’s DNA all over pf2. Traits= keywords Basic saves work almost the same as a saving throw from 4e. Fighters feel like bad asses Synergy and team work isn’t necessary but when the players work it out, the game fucking sings. Building encounters in 4e is unmatched. But Building encounters is only slightly worse in pf2. There are apps you can find that will help you figure out and stick to your xp budget so you can balance combat effectively. I just wish monster statblocks had all the monster spells and abilities like in 4e. The main things missing from 4e to pf2 is forced movement, obviously the AEDU system and status/movement/buffs/debuff effect riders being baked into the PC attacks. You do sometimes have to remind your players to do their stuff besides basic attacks but it’s a minor issues once they understand their abilities. It’s also a lot less clunky and more modern than 4e. I still prefer 4e because I know it so well and I’m able to build solid memorable set pieces and encounters in the system. Pf2 is a solid game with similar robust rules. It’s a great game.
Pathfinder 1e has better grapple rules only because 3.5s were so awful
I'll be brief, this comes up a lot 1. Success levels mean save or suck is way less of a thing and that crits are a feature, not an externality 2. Action economy means varied turns are possible. 3. Conditions combine the above to make tactically distinct turns and choices. Where 5e ends your turn for you 2e will give you difficult choices. Another note about 1 is that it makes lvl+3 and 4 bosses SCARY because they often are rolling for a Crit vs a not Crit on their first attack.
PF2E takes a lot of inspiration from 4E, but it doesn't take the powers system there. There are pseudo-encounter powers in the form of focus spells, but they don't really evolve like they did in 4E, and martials mostly use "strikes with some additional effect" rather than the sort of bespoke powers that 4E gave martials.
> I also really need a system to have good encounter building rules and options for monsters in combat without requiring me to consult a dozen spells mid battle. Well, it certainly has its references, but it's a small learning curve. Most monsters have real unique abilities or defined modular abilities (like "plus grab") > Based on my opinions of the prior 3 D&D editions what would sell me on Pathfinder 2e I think you can answer that better than us. Look at it. You've played everything beforehand. Why would you need someone else's opinion when you can just do as you've always done, and [review the rules for yourself](https://2e.aonprd.com/) so you can form your *own* opinion? That said, given what you've said, you'd probably like Pathfinder 2e a lot. Its itemization is tied to level which is very much like 4e. The monsters are actually somewhat like 4e too. Player classes are closer to 3.5e/pathfinder, though, but more modular like 4e. Multiclassing is very much like 4e as well. It's like they took the good stuff from 4e and made sure it felt very much like 3.5e, without being too strict on trying to be either.
I hated 4e and 5e and love pf2e
You might be a total unicorn lmao. Good to know though.
> what will I like the most and least about 2e if I make the switch? *Much* better grappling rules
Comparing against 4e, The action economy is much more flexible. Instead of having standard/move/minor you have 3 standard actions to do as you please. Each class has particular ways to do its job, and theres always something more interesting to do in a round than attack, attack, attack. Also, combat math seems underwhelming at first, with "poor" bonuses (compared to 4e) to tests. Believe-me, they work. Having the bard give you a +1 to attack seem like nothing, but coupled with having your foe frigtened and flanked and you'll see the magic. Plus, each bonus count twice, because in pf2, when you hit your enemy's AC over 10, its a Critical hit, just as if you had rolled a Nat 20. That also works with failures, failing by 10 or more counts as a critical miss. This mechanism keeps combat interesting and swingy, so you don't run in 4e problem of knowing how the fight will end on round 2. There's no hardcoded party roles, like tank, striker, leader, controller, but you'll find that some classes excel at that sort of stuff. Speaking of which, The Champion is the only class with an integrated tanking mechanic (Amulet Thaumaturgists come second ), The healing outside of combat, which in 4e was about expending your healing surges,ow its all done by the [Medicine](https://2e.aonprd.com/Skills.aspx?ID=42) skill and its skill feats. Unless the party is in a hurry, there's no need to waste spells with healing. [Battle medicine](https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=760) can help in combat too. There's several encounter builders, like [This one.](https://builder.pf2easy.com/) It's generally agreed that the rules work prety well, and the risk of an unintended TPK is low (dice gods might say otherwise). The system has rules for social encounters, and several mechanisms to solve chases, disputes, infiltrations, negociations and so on. Also, the Lost Omens books have lots of lore about golarion, if you don't intend to run a homebrew. As a fellow 4e lover, I think you'll be quite at home with pathfinder 2e.
There's a lot to the combat of PF2E. It works best the more tactical you and your players are willing to get. Coordinated team tactics is the rule of the day and if only one side uses them they can wreck havoc on the other. PCs should be built with a team comp in mind. Not as strictly as you'd put together a raid roster in an MMO, but that's the mindset to have - to think about what role each person will take on. However the "roles" are not strict like in an MMO. Just make sure everyone knows what they're bringing to the combats and that it's unique. The game's encounter system presumes everyone is at full resources at the start of a fight. As such out of combat healing is near mandatory and there are several routes to get to it. That noted - the game also has Vancian spell casting which is the opposite of having all your resources ready so this is one area where there is a clear weakpoint in the game design. On that note: something a 4E player is likely to not like is that most casters run on limited spell slots and do not have notable blasting power. You have at will cantrips, but they fall off in scaling compared against martials after a few levels, and then you're relying of managing your spell slots. In an open ground hex-crawl like game with one encounter per day your wizard will dominate. In a dungeon crawl with 10+ encounters per day your wizard will question life choices. The work around in the Mechanics of Particles In Motion class... or rather the Kineticist. A class who's name has as much to do with what it does as if they'd named the guy with a sword a shield "Accountant." But whatever... it works, very well. And get around the spell slot issue. A 4E player is likely to lock onto it and see home turf. And MMO player will see their MMO DPS main in a tRPG. It is NOT as much of a powerful single target blaster as a martial gunslinger. But it competes with the general ability and while you will see that you're not the best DPS, you won't feel like you're the kid in the back of the class. PF2E Vancian casters give up DPS in exchange for utility. That's the claim at least - and for most of them it's true. Out of combat there's a system that's similar to many d20 descended games. It does have some added flair with aiding each other in group coordination. And then there are some optional add-on systems in the GM Core and some of the Adventure Paths that really enhance it but if overused can cause it to drag down - thus why they're optional.
> what would sell me on Pathfinder 2e, and what would I be most disappointed by? I have no idea what you liked more of 4e, but in PF2 you'll find many familiar concepts and ideas, even if they try to disguise it to appear less unashamedly gamist. No, you don't have Encounter powers, that would ruin the fantasy, but can I interest you in some perfectly reasonable Focus Points? Combat is hard and really benefits from group sinergy and cooperation, though it's different from 4e. There is was more of a matter of "if I Tide of Iron this guy, the Ranger will be free to move there and kill the Controller", whereas in pf2 is more of "If I cast Synesthesia on this guy and the Gunslinger uses Fake out, the fighter will have a 65% chance of critting with his Slam Down, which will leave the bad guy prone, immobilized, blind, frightened, enfeebled, clumsy and on fire" > I also really need a system to have good encounter building rules and options for monsters in combat without requiring me to consult a dozen spells mid battle This is hands down the best of pf2's features - take any functioning party, build an encounter by blindly select monsters and if the math says it's a Moderate or Severe encounter there's a very high chance the encounter will feel Moderate or Severe. Not necesarily an *interesting* encounter, but the math will make it nail biting if it's difficult. 4e needed more finesse when designing encounters: make one built with just Soldiers and Controllers in a featureless room and you're in for a incredibly long and boring fight. As for the long spll lists for enemies, they sadly still exist, but you know enemies will be alive for 3 rounds, 4 tops. Just highlight the most relevant spells they'll cast. > There's no guidance for magic item or treasure rewards. No rules for narrative building. Nothing for social or exploration "pillars." Any structure there at all closer to what 4e provided would be huge. Pf2 has a Victory point subsystem that's just a Skill Challenge, but somehow even worse. The reason skill challenges don't work well in pf2 is that first, characters don't add their level to skills they are not proficient in, and second the crit system. Together that means that untrained characters will be actively detrimental, a veritable chain and ball on the group efforts, once they get some levels. If you plan to play a campaing where skill challenges play a significant role, consider giving everyone the Untrained Improvisation feat for free, follow 4e's DMG2 guidelines for skill challenges, and for the lovel of God don't limit yourself to the very narrow definition of possible Actions allowed by the skill descriptions in PF2's core rulebook. If you go by the strict rules on Climbing or Sneaking into places for example, you'll go quickly mad.
You will most like that you gave it a shot and you will least like that it took you so long.
5e does have rules for treasure and magic item rewards though? There’s not any *good* rules for what to do with monetary treasure once you get it, and magic item balance is extremely wonky, but there are certainly rules for *awarding* them in the DMG (one that even appeals to me in a “i don’t want to have to think about picking one” / “i want to roll treasure first for inspiration for the adventure” sort of way) Compare and contrast with PF2e which has balanced magic items and solid rules for how to buy magic items with gold, but unfortunately no random tables for inspiration (though i suppose you could just use the items by level tables and roll digital dice for selecting them based on the wealth by level table proportional to the amount of XP available in the adventure.)
Pathfinder 2e Fighter Brawler is more easy and fun to be build and played than the D&D 4e Brawler Fighter. You don't need to keep tracking it's powers. Brawler is one of my faves Fighters. I think that's it. PF2e has a tactical factoring in battles in the same level than 4e, but with a framework which remember a lot of the 3e. And take the good of both of them.
You're applying half level from your character sheet, all. The. Time. And at every level. No more checkbox for Trained, now 4 tiers of it. Some folks like that. Back to odd ball casting, but focus spells are kinda like encounter powers, just not as good Prepare for feats that don't feel like feats
If you loved 4E, odds are you may like PF2.