Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[dave2008]

For myself? Because it took a lot of time to build PF1 encounters to make them harder. It took a lot of time in other D&D systems. In nearly every system of D&D, casters made encounters incredibly easy as the levels got higher. They trivialized so much with pre-buffing and wide ranging powerful spell selection, that you had to plan for this every encounter. And player damage far exceeded monster hit points. Healing also exceeded the monsters ability to deal damage. So you had to put a lot of work in planning around a variety of variables that were hard to account for.

Whereas toning down a PF2 encounter might be removing a monster, making a monster not want to land a hit through a Champion reaction, role-playing a situation out, delaying a monster a few rounds, or what not. I don't have to spend countless time account for a huge number of variables to make an encounter. Casters don't have near the ability to pre-buff or trivialize an encounter like they used to. The best tactic my cleric has found right now is to turn invisible since far fewer creatures can detect it while he heals and buffs. Even that keeps them alive because if the cleric were visible, he would likely get put in the ground quickly and the party might fall from that.

To sum it up, it takes far less work to make encounters easier than it took for me to make encounters harder in past editions. It's pretty surprising.

OK, so PF2 makes it easier is what your saying? One is not generally better or worse, it is just that it is easier for you to make encounters easier in PF2 than it was for you to make an encounter difficult in PF1 or D&D?

I see them as equivalent as a general concept, obviously execution varies.

 

[dave2008]

Yes, my players like it. It took them a bit to get used to, but after learning it they like it a lot. We're fully on board. What sold them on PF2 versus 5E:

1. Main thing was player options. They had fun making characters again. 5E had very limited character creation options and being able to build an interesting character mechanically is very important to them.

2. There was stuff to look forward to and buy. No real meaningful character options were released by 5E for over a year. My friends would make fun of how there were no options and nothing to spend their money on. The fact they have a game that is releasing material for additional character options was a huge selling point.

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking if they liked PF2, I don't care about that. I was asking if they liked the fact that their min-max mindset / play style was ineffectual. When I asked optimizers about this, some claimed they would not like it if they couldn't "game" the system. The fact the could "break" the game was important to them. I was just wondering if that was the case with your group. You will probably have to ask them directly, as it is something different from enjoying the game play.

From a DM standpoint for me I was sold on the following:

Again, I wasn't asking about why you liked PF2. However, ...

1. 3 action system is far better for story-telling and interesting fights than the move and action system. Surprised it wasn't done earlier.

I do think that is one of the quasi-innovations of PF2, though I wish they had gone further and wrapped reactions into it. That is the type of system I have been thinking about for a few years. I am also not sold on including movement in the action economy. 5e's separate move action, that can then be spent separately, is a quasi-innovation that could be explored more. I am personally trying to find a marriage of the two that also includes reactions.

2. Challenges are not only mechanically interesting, but they are built in a way that makes them both believable mechanically and realistically. They are very organically built and feel like something real including the methods for dealing with them.

I have no idea what that means, I always build my challenges "realistically"and "organically."

Read a monster like the Grikkitog. It's a very interesting monster that seems like it is very real. I haven't seen monsters built in such an interesting way in the history of D&D. This is all enabled by the 3 action system.

Is that in the Bestiary? If so I will check it out.

 

[dave2008]

Read a monster like the Grikkitog. It's a very interesting monster that seems like it is very real. I haven't seen monsters built in such an interesting way in the history of D&D. This is all enabled by the 3 action system.

OK, I just read the Grikkitog and I am going to need some explanation, if your willing. It doesn't interest me, but that is pretty subjective. However, I don't understand how the 3 action system helps this monster at all. Perhaps is my lack of using it, can you clarify? I feel I could make this thing in 5e with really almost not changes and if I wanted to make it more interesting I would make it a legendary monster.

 

[Celtavian]

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. I wasn't asking if they liked PF2, I don't care about that. I was asking if they liked the fact that their min-max mindset / play style was ineffectual. When I asked optimizers about this, some claimed they would not like it if they couldn't "game" the system. The fact the could "break" the game was important to them. I was just wondering if that was the case with your group. You will probably have to ask them directly, as it is something different from enjoying the game play.

They don't mind. They like the challenge of trying to build the most powerful character within the context of the system. They bitch a little when I tell them a rule doesn't work like they think it does which suddenly reduces what they think they found from powerful to normative or substandard. They just go back to building the best character they can and make adjustments.

The game is fun. If the game is fun, they don't worry about the inability to game the system.

Again, I wasn't asking about why you liked PF2. However, ...
I do think that is one of the quasi-innovations of PF2, though I wish they had gone further and wrapped reactions into it. That is the type of system I have been thinking about for a few years. I am also not soled on including movement in the action economy. 5e's separate move action, that can then be spent separately, is a quasi-innovation that could be explored more. I am personally trying to find a marriage of the two that also includes reactions.
I have no idea what that means, I always build my challenges "realistically"and "organically."

It means that the abilities are written in a fashion that makes them seem real. No it uses this spell or it simulates this ability. They are written with a very specific effect they are trying to create that as a DM I am capable of visualizing and playing mechanically. To put it simply, the abilities make sense and realistic.

 

[Celtavian]

OK, I just read the Grikkitog and I am going to need some explanation, if your willing. It doesn't interest me, but that is pretty subjective. However, I don't understand how the 3 action system helps this monster at all. Perhaps is my lack of using it, can you clarify? I feel I could make this thing in 5e with really almost not changes and if I wanted to make it more interesting I would make it a legendary monster.

The 3 action system doesn't help this monster as much as I thought. I figured it's barbed maw required an action, but it's just a part of its bite. I've played Legendary creatures. They don't compare to PF2 creatures whose attacks are part of their options. With the three action system I can better control their reactions to the party rather than using a legendary action or lair action exactly the same time every encounter over and over again. If the action fits what the party is doing, then I can use it with the flexible action system without feeling like I'm wasting a monster's actions. Whereas with the legendary and lair actions, I used them regardless of whether they fit what the players were doing or were completely ineffective. A lot of legendary and lair actions were pretty pointless, especially with effective use of Leomund's Hut. That spell was super annoying.

This creature is supposed to be a creature composed of living stone that is supposed to be able to control the stone around it attacking you while remaining completely concealed by the stone it embeds itself in so the players can't see it while it's attacking.

This thing has an aura that allows it to attack from any stone within 120 feet of it known as an infestation aura making it as though this creature has infested the stone and it's body is controlling the stone within the area of it's aura. Its stone jaws from the infested stone can bite the creature holding it in place while chewing on them, all the while the player has to figure out where it is and try to get free to close to attack it.

This very much feels like what it is and is capable of seriously challenging an entire party with rather simple, appropriate, but powerful abilities. You can build a real creepy encounter as though the stone came to life to kill the party moreso than any creature I've seen in the past. The closest creature that can do this off the top of my head is a xorn, but a lvl 11 party can kill a xorn pretty fast.

At the end of the day, you play the system you enjoy. I vastly prefer PF2 over 5E. There is just more to do, more to play with, more to building characters, and more of everything. As a DM and player, I prefer more options and more interesting things to do. I am very pleased with this new iteration of PF. I thought I would hate it because I've always enjoyed casters, but the new system offers so many new mechanical options I enjoy I am willing to live with the weaker casters.

 

[dave2008]

They don't mind. They like the challenge of trying to build the most powerful character within the context of the system. They bitch a little when I tell them a rule doesn't work like they think it does which suddenly reduces what they think they found from powerful to normative or substandard. They just go back to building the best character they can and make adjustments.

you could be right, but it would be interesting to ask them specifically now and then again after you finish the AP.

The game is fun. If the game is fun, they don't worry about the inability to game the system.

That's good to hear, that was my thought when I as discussing it a couple of years ago, but some people were adamant.

It means that the abilities are written in a fashion that makes them seem real. No it uses this spell or it simulates this ability. They are written with a very specific effect they are trying to create that as a DM I am capable of visualizing and playing mechanically. To put it simply, the abilities make sense and realistic.

Well that is rather subjective. It has been awhile since I looked through the Bestiary, but I don't remember anything feeling more "realistic,' but like I said that is subjective. I also have certain biases and I was really disappointed with the dragons in PF2e.

We will also just have to agree to disagree about legendary monsters. I found just about every legendary monster in the 5e MM more interesting than the equivalent monster in the Bestiary. And the MM ones aren't even the best examples.

However, this thread is about actual play experience, not monster design. If I have any other questions about monster design I will DM you.

 

[CapnZapp]

For myself? Because it took a lot of time to build PF1 encounters to make them harder. It took a lot of time in other D&D systems. In nearly every system of D&D, casters made encounters incredibly easy as the levels got higher. They trivialized so much with pre-buffing and wide ranging powerful spell selection, that you had to plan for this every encounter. And player damage far exceeded monster hit points. Healing also exceeded the monsters ability to deal damage. So you had to put a lot of work in planning around a variety of variables that were hard to account for.

Whereas toning down a PF2 encounter might be removing a monster, making a monster not want to land a hit through a Champion reaction, role-playing a situation out, delaying a monster a few rounds, or what not. I don't have to spend countless time account for a huge number of variables to make an encounter. Casters don't have near the ability to pre-buff or trivialize an encounter like they used to. The best tactic my cleric has found right now is to turn invisible since far fewer creatures can detect it while he heals and buffs. Even that keeps them alive because if the cleric were visible, he would likely get put in the ground quickly and the party might fall from that.

To sum it up, it takes far less work to make encounters easier than it took for me to make encounters harder in past editions.

Let me just say that my answer would be letter-for-letter identical to the above!

 

[Schmoe]

The only resource management I can see are daily uses, most notably spell slots, yes.

You can't pitch a series of strong monsters against the party in order to slow down the story. (And to be fair the APs don't even try)

Instead, you're supposed to hand out a map to the heroes. If you want progress to stall, you need to to that through story. (Such as, "you can only meet with Mistress Omfala tomorrow to learn the location of the cult headquarters") Then, the expectation is that the heroes can't even try to circumvent that. Then you get a new map (and probably level too), and can start adventuring again. The pacing is 100% controlled by the story, and players are definitely expected to just wait for the next time their heroes are let out to play. (If this makes you think of 4E, you're not alone...)

If you want a more traditional sandboxy - "open world" - experience, where the game mechanics and player decisions play into the pacing of the game, you need to make substantial changes to the PF2 game engine.

So this is actually where I think that adventure design has a bigger, non-trivial role to play, in a couple of places. In a sandbox (as I think of it, there are other interpretations) there is at least geographical distance between many places, and travel time limits how much the party can do in a day. In addition, construction of each adventure location will naturally cause the party to retreat in certain cases, make multiple sorties in others, or waltz through in others.

Not having the benefit of a lot of play experience, let give a concrete example of what I'm picturing and you can tell me what's wrong with the picture. Imagine a cave complex of troglodytes. There are multiple rooms of troglodytes, most with 2-3 trogs, and some with 4-6. The party is strong enough to where 2-3 trogs is simple, 4-6 is a challenge, 7-9 is really tough, and 10+ forget about it. The trogs are somewhat organized, and may support each other in some cases, but usually it takes strong leadership to really bring them together. Furthermore, there's a little bit of movement around the complex so that every 30 minutes or so there's a 50/50 chance that a patrol of 2-3 runs into them. Patrols always either reinforce a room or bring reinforcements.

As the party explores, if they are careful they take multiple smaller rooms independently, never needing to slow down too much for healing. If they aren't careful, one of the encounters could easily ballon into a real challenge. If they slow down too much, they may get caught by a patrol and then have a real challenge. They'll quickly learn that not being careful and going too slow is a losing proposition. Eventually they'll probably decide to retreat and regroup.

If the party retreats, the trogs will discover they have been invaded and might consolidate into a strong base of 10+. What should they do? Here they can try divide and conquer tactics, or just avoid the strong base for a while until enough time has passed and the trogs decide the danger is over. Better hope the party is scouting and playing smartly.

First and foremost you need to disable the Medicine skill feats, so that heroes must either use spells or potions to heal back up, or simply use natural healing. As you can imagine from my earlier posts, this is not easy. In fact, it is a lot of work, since you must identify every feat that can make you heal in minutes and hours. For example, the Paladin class comes with that built-in. Gods and Magic introduces "Godless Healing".

Then you need to ease up on the difficulty, so that pressing on without all your hit points becomes more reasonable and less a death trap.

You probably need to make other adjustments too. For example, in order to support the classic sandbox idea that you're meant to run away from some monsters (at least at first), you probably need to run the game with the proficiency-without-level variant. This is so simply because even a L+3 monster that happens to win initiative can easily down a hero in a single round, even when that hero is a Fighter with the best defenses in the game. An L+6 monster would probably kill half the party before the rest knew what hit them.

I'll acknowledge that PF2 monsters are probably inherently more dangerous, but most of my background is in 3.5e and prior. In 3.5e, an umber hulk could easily wipe out an entire party 4 levels lower before they had a chance to react (confusion), and yet sandbox adventures still happen. My experience has been that parties avoid dangerous creatures in sandboxes by a combination of rumors and scouting. If you see the dragon flying off in the distance, then hide. If you know there are umber hulks in those caverns, don't go there. Is there something inherent in PF2 that makes that any different?

Remember, the RAW rules are staunchly written to support the AP playstyle, where you nearly always meet L-2 to L+2 monsters, on a clearly marked trail with few or no significant deviations.

So they've narrowed the band of possible challenges. In general I think that could be a good thing, especially with the 5e experience in mind (CR? Who cares about CR?), but not if it is too rigid. In your experience, how would a group of L6 characters handle a horde of 50+ orc warriors (CR1)?

 

[Porridge]

Wizard's are a low value class. You know the old PF1 tier system where wizards were number one with a bullet? Now they are the low guy on that list...

Surely the low guy on the list is the Alchemist!

...but I agree that the Wizard (or Wizard and Sorcerer) are next lowest on the list.

(And I agree that the Bard is awesome.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Not having the benefit of a lot of play experience, let give a concrete example of what I'm picturing and you can tell me what's wrong with the picture. Imagine a cave complex of troglodytes. There are multiple rooms of troglodytes, most with 2-3 trogs, and some with 4-6. The party is strong enough to where 2-3 trogs is simple, 4-6 is a challenge, 7-9 is really tough, and 10+ forget about it. The trogs are somewhat organized, and may support each other in some cases, but usually it takes strong leadership to really bring them together. Furthermore, there's a little bit of movement around the complex so that every 30 minutes or so there's a 50/50 chance that a patrol of 2-3 runs into them. Patrols always either reinforce a room or bring reinforcements.

As the party explores, if they are careful they take multiple smaller rooms independently, never needing to slow down too much for healing. If they aren't careful, one of the encounters could easily ballon into a real challenge. If they slow down too much, they may get caught by a patrol and then have a real challenge. They'll quickly learn that not being careful and going too slow is a losing proposition. Eventually they'll probably decide to retreat and regroup.

If the party retreats, the trogs will discover they have been invaded and might consolidate into a strong base of 10+. What should they do? Here they can try divide and conquer tactics, or just avoid the strong base for a while until enough time has passed and the trogs decide the danger is over. Better hope the party is scouting and playing smartly.

This is exactly what you would expect, coming from anything from AD&D or 5E, or, dunno, Savage Worlds or Tunnels & Trolls.

In PF2, the game math mandates a completely different approach. See, PF2 doesn't do "2-3 trogs is simple, 4-6 is a challenge, 7-9 is really tough, and 10+ forget about it" at all.

Let's use actual Bestiary numbers to illustrate: Warriors are level 1, Skulkers level 2 and Leaders level 3. Let's furthermore assume the party consists of four level 2 heroes. (The math is exactly the same if your monsters are levels 8, 9, and 10 and you are level 9).

Then I'd say a single Warrior is what you'd call "simple."

Two Warriors or one Warrior and one Skulker is "a challenge".

Three or four Warriors, two Skulkers, or one Leader and one Warrior is "really tough".

Combine any two of the previous encounters, and you are immediately in "really tough" territory, if not outright "forget about it".

Only "simple" encounters mean there's a real chance of not taking significant damage. As soon as you face a "challenge", chances are at least one hero will lose half his hit points, and require healing.

At such a low level, Medicine will keep pace, so that the 10 minute downtime per encounter schedule might seem workable. As you level up, you realize you're more realistically looking at 20, 30 or even 40 minutes downtime per encounter on average. (So a dozen encounters takes four or six hours, 99% spent resting). You might bring this down by focusing your party's capacity for healing. On the other hand, any party without Medicine will definitely need two or more days to wrap it up.

More importantly, you hopefully see that the space for reinforcements is next to zero. You speak of a wandering patrol of three Trogs. I'm assuming Warriors. You can't add that to any challenging fight or you'd look at a possible TPK. At the very least you would turn the game into fantasy naughty word Vietnam, because of the harrowing difficulty.

So even hours after entering the Trog caves, and half a dozen rooms cleared, you have basically no room to play the Trogs smart, or you immediately overwhelm the heroes.

You can absolutely expect them to change gears, turning to guerilla-style warfare, or protacted diplomacy or whatever. Many groups don't enjoy that, though. (I should clearly state that this isn't even discussed in Paizo's APs).

What you can't do is just keep on trucking like you were playing another game. To do that you need enemies of at the very least three levels lower (preferably more).

Or, as I've stated already, you need to transform the game by losing level to proficiency, loosening up the very very tight math.

Ergo my conclusion: the game comes set for 4E-style combat set-pieces out of the box. If you want it to support sandbox play, you need to change something.