• The Infractions Forum is available for public view. Please note that if you have been suspended you will need to open a private/incognito browser window to view it.

Which 5e DMs are switching to P2, and why?

BeholderThief

Registered User
Validated User
I bought the PDF to check it out.

I might try a one shot to give it a spin, but just from reading it, it doesn’t seem like it would serve my style of play very well.
 

jimthegray

Registered User
Validated User
What on the DM side of the screen makes P2 worth switching from 5e?
I'll be mostly switching as a dm and player . But keeling my main 5th game going until the players are done with it and I have a charity 5th game I'll stay in as well as a mad mage game I'm in for a. While
 

jimthegray

Registered User
Validated User
But why do you not just switch to 5e strictly? Is there something you like about P2 that 5e doesn’t give you? Or is the group just dedicated to Pathfinder.
For me pf2 has a lot more options then 5th. And as a dm.i find it just as easy as 5th to run
 

Pieta

Very custom
Validated User
Has PF2 eliminated the ever-stacking giant modifiers issue that seems to be the legacy of all 3e’s descendants?
There are five types of modifiers, your attribute (changes rarely and can be pre-calculated), your proficiency (ditto), item modifiers (ditto), status modifiers (from spells and conditions) and circumstance modifiers (from situations, such as behind cover or getting help from an ally). You count the biggest bonus and penalty in each category only.

There are also untyped penalties (but not bonuses) which are cumulative with themselves. Second attack in a round at a long range would get two different untyped penalties you add together. Those tend to be codified and repeated often, so you could also pre-calculate (my first attack is X, my second is X-5, etc).

Under most circumstances, you should read a number from your sheet and add/remove at most four other numbers. Whether that's ever-stacking, I leave up to you.
 

Rolzup

Dinoczar
Validated User
I'm very curious to see how this does. It seems to run directly contrary to the idea behind original Pathfinder -- I don't think that's a bad thing, mind, but is it what their player base wants? There's an art to making PCs in 3e and its derivatives, and while it's not a particularly easy (or pretty) process, people do derive a lot of satisfaction from it. Pathfinder 2.0 isn't going to scratch that particular itch, from what I've seen of it.
 

jimthegray

Registered User
Validated User
I'm very curious to see how this does. It seems to run directly contrary to the idea behind original Pathfinder -- I don't think that's a bad thing, mind, but is it what their player base wants? There's an art to making PCs in 3e and its derivatives, and while it's not a particularly easy (or pretty) process, people do derive a lot of satisfaction from it. Pathfinder 2.0 isn't going to scratch that particular itch, from what I've seen of it.
As a pf player. What I like are options paticularly class and build options which pf 2 has and which they seem to be committed 2 , so so far so good. I'll know more when most omen guide arrives as BBC well as the Oct character option book and new classes beta
 

happyhermit

Registered User
Validated User
Hmm, I have been thinking a bit about PF2, I would certainly have to run it though. The original question was about what is appealing from the GM side, but it seems like most of the answers come down to more options for players, am I right? Or is "more crunch" than 5e still seen as a reason for a GM to run it rather than 5e? It certainly looks to me like there is significantly more overhead for GMs and players, but do people find the crunch worth it from the GM side or are they running it because they or others want to experience the player side?
 

HidaO-Win

Hida Without Fear
Validated User
On the GM side, monsters are simpler to run and much more entertaining. Combats are fairly consistently 3-4 rounds so don't overstay their welcome. You have more "official" control over when annoying spells like teleport show up.
 

fjw70

Registered User
Validated User
On the GM side, monsters are simpler to run and much more entertaining. Combats are fairly consistently 3-4 rounds so don't overstay their welcome. You have more "official" control over when annoying spells like teleport show up.
Monsters in P2 simpler than 5e?
 

jimthegray

Registered User
Validated User
Hmm, I have been thinking a bit about PF2, I would certainly have to run it though. The original question was about what is appealing from the GM side, but it seems like most of the answers come down to more options for players, am I right? Or is "more crunch" than 5e still seen as a reason for a GM to run it rather than 5e? It certainly looks to me like there is significantly more overhead for GMs and players, but do people find the crunch worth it from the GM side or are they running it because they or others want to experience the player side?
I dont think that on the gm side that there is more overhead it actually seems easy in some ways. Like encounter design. But will need to run more games to be sure
 
Top Bottom