Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[FrozenNorth]

A peculiarly specific example.

It is an example that readily comes to mind because: (1) the DCs in the Core rulebook aren’t obviously tied to level; (2) the game seems to rely on the Treat Wounds action to heal up your characters between fights; (3) because a critical success already heals more than a simple success and Expert prof essentially just gives you a +2 to your roll, in many cases it makes for sense to try to go for the critical (and succeed on the lower check) than try for the higher DC and fail.

Proficiency Rank	With (default)	Without (variant)
Untrained	10	10
Trained	15	15
Expert	20	20
Master	30	25
Legendary	40	30

As you can see, the Treat Wounds DC doesn't change (for Expert proficiency), so you'll probably stick a bit longer to 2d8 healing before you aspire to the 2d8+10 level.

So with a +4 in the relevant skill, you need Master level (level 7?) before you have a 50% chance of succeeding on your Treat Wounds roll (and can use Assurance).

You are unlikely to ever be able to consistently use Master Treat Wounds. (Druids and Clerics might).

 

[CapnZapp]

I still feel it is misplaced to discuss a specific example, at least in this thread.

Let's discuss the level without proficiency variant more in general without getting bogged down in specific use cases (especially ones that might give an outsized impression on the variant's viability).

After all, my intent for bring it it up is to assuage concerns over the default encounter expectations (from Dave2008 and others). The topic here remains bringing across actual AP experience. Cheers

That said,

(1) the DCs in the Core rulebook aren’t obviously tied to level

I agree it isn't as obvious as one might like, but every DC is either clearly tied to level, or it's tied to proficiency rank.

The GMG tells you to either a) subtract level from the DC or b) replace the "proficiency rank DC" (meaning doing nothing except at higher levels where you replace DC 30 with DC 25 and DC 40 with DC 30). While maybe not intuitive, it is at least simple.

 

[FrozenNorth]

After all, my intent for bring it it up is to assuage concerns over the default encounter expectations (from Dave2008 and others). The topic here remains bringing across actual AP experience. Cheers

No worries.

That said,


I agree it isn't as obvious as one might like, but every DC is either clearly tied to level, or it's tied to proficiency rank.

The GMG tells you to either a) subtract level from the DC or b) replace the "proficiency rank DC" (meaning doing nothing except at higher levels where you replace DC 30 with DC 25 and DC 40 with DC 30). While maybe not intuitive, it is at least simple.

Sorry, what I meant was that compared to certain other instances in the book (where the levels are explicit), the use of Treat Wounds is not tied to a level.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sorry, what I meant was that compared to certain other instances in the book (where the levels are explicit), the use of Treat Wounds is not tied to a level.

No problem.

It's tied to proficiency rank.

It's either level or rank. Again, not well explained by Paizo, but once you realize it, it becomes really simple:

Any time you're unsure if you should subtract level (perhaps because you can't find one), don't.

Instead change 30 to 25 and 40 to 30; done!

 

[Celtavian]

Nope. We have had lots of fighters, a ranger, a few rogues, a wizard, and a druid. That is it in 6 years of 5e.

No, it is a page with tables that help adjudicate improve. Not a lot, but helpful. 5e actually has more helpful tables and info for this, but it is spread around the DMG. I keep meaning to compile it, but if I haven;t done so in 6 years I probably will not.
I am more likely to play it myself first. My current group is having a blast with our modified 5e, I don't see a need to change that for my personal interest at this point. I would also need a bit of system mastery that I don;t have to bring in some of our house-rules. I am also not good with running published adventures, never have been. I would likely need to run my own, which is fine.

I hope to give it a try. My current group as played 1e, 4e, and 5e, So they are definitely willing to try new systems, it is just our current play style seems very different from the reports I hear about PF2e. I think it is best for me to give a try first and then get the group to try a 1-shot adventure at some point. We do that sometimes.

We have played every edition differently than the rules state. We made a bunch of house rules for other systems. I think PF2 is the first edition of D&D that ran well out of the box. We wrote house rules for nearly everything or made things up for nearly everything dating back to 1E. I wrote house rules for 5E. I haven't seen the need for a house rule yet for PF2, which is odd. Everything is so strangely balanced, often more useful than it looks on paper, and interacts in surprising ways within the rule framework, that I don't want to mess around with it too much yet. Nothing is yet too over-powered or too under-powered. About the only house rule I might encourage some time is the 5E spell system at least the way spells are memorized. I think I could probably yank that over to PF2 without causing too much of an imbalance if every caster does it the same way. The rules are so modular I should be able to rewrite Spell Repertoire and Preparation in a way that works more like 5E. This would give more caster flexibility, which is one of the 5E mechanics I really liked.

 

[dave2008]

We have played every edition differently than the rules state. We made a bunch of house rules for other systems. I think PF2 is the first edition of D&D that ran well out of the box. We wrote house rules for nearly everything or made things up for nearly everything dating back to 1E. I wrote house rules for 5E. I haven't seen the need for a house rule yet for PF2, which is odd. Everything is so strangely balanced, often more useful than it looks on paper, and interacts in surprising ways within the rule framework, that I don't want to mess around with it too much yet. Nothing is yet too over-powered or too under-powered. About the only house rule I might encourage some time is the 5E spell system at least the way spells are memorized. I think I could probably yank that over to PF2 without causing too much of an imbalance if every caster does it the same way. The rules are so modular I should be able to rewrite Spell Repertoire and Preparation in a way that works more like 5E. This would give more caster flexibility, which is one of the 5E mechanics I really liked.

That is one of my fears too. I love to tinker and make house rules / homebrew. For example, we always play with some version of armor as DR. We have a great method that works for us that came from a 4e house rule that we modified to 5e. I assume I can use a version of the rule in PF2e, but I worry it would have some hidden effect. Though to be honest, we are pretty flexible when that happens.

Also, I am not personally a fan of balance, so I worry how that would change things if we tip the scales. I assume I can handle it like other systems, but I worry with PF2e being such a finely tuned machine

 

[CapnZapp]

armor as DR

The following is really nothing more than a huge aside. Hope you see why you shouldn't put too much significance onto it, Dave.

Spoiler: Anyways, I put it in spoilers

I'm sure you're aware armor-as-DR has a profound effect on the standard D&D combat engine.

In a loosey-goosey game such as 5E I'm sure it's easy to compensate for this, but I would strongly recommend you hold off experimenting with it in a tightly wound game such as PF2 until you have acquainted yourself with the system.

I really mean it. Paizo has created a game where every little +1 has meaning, and carries a cost. I am personally doubtful it is even possible to retain that balance with armor-as-DR. On one hand you have the Barbarian making less accurate but very powerful blows. On the other you have the Ranger making many less-powerful blows. In the middle there's the Fighter, making highly accurate blows.

Introducing DR to every foe would be a huge nerf to the Ranger (and area spells such as Fireball too probably) and a major boon to the Barbarian. The Fighter too, I would suspect, given the way crits work in PF2. They are an absolutely critical component to take into account of any system analysis, but doubly so here, where the value of crits would be even greater (since you presumably don't count armor-DR twice). You certainly can't implement it the standard way (where AC drops one step per DR gained) without changing criticals, and thus disassembling the entire foundation of PF2. Add to that the way you deal more damage as you level up, significantly so (you might start out doing 1d8+4 damage and end up dealing 4d8+2d6+12 damage, with every attack). This should tell you that the plain armor-as-DR system makes assumptions that simply do not hold true of this particular iteration of D&D. Do you let each armor potency rune double its DR, for instance?

PS. I don't think it's particularly possible in 5E or indeed in any game of D&D either (to add armor-as-DR while preserving perfect balance), but there one balance might work just as well as another. But in PF2 this would likely mean that whole swaths of feats become more powerful at the expense of others. And when I say "swaths" I mean "literally hundreds". That makes the task much more work intensive, probably well past the point where the payoff isn't worth the effort.

 

[dave2008]

The following is really nothing more than a huge aside. Hope you see why you shouldn't put too much significance onto it, Dave.

Spoiler: Anyways, I put it in spoilers

I'm sure you're aware armor-as-DR has a profound effect on the standard D&D combat engine.

In a loosey-goosey game such as 5E I'm sure it's easy to compensate for this, but I would strongly recommend you hold off experimenting with it in a tightly wound game such as PF2 until you have acquainted yourself with the system.

I really mean it. Paizo has created a game where every little +1 has meaning, and carries a cost. I am personally doubtful it is even possible to retain that balance with armor-as-DR. On one hand you have the Barbarian making less accurate but very powerful blows. On the other you have the Ranger making many less-powerful blows. In the middle there's the Fighter, making highly accurate blows.

Introducing DR to every foe would be a huge nerf to the Ranger (and area spells such as Fireball too probably) and a major boon to the Barbarian. The Fighter too, I would suspect, given the way crits work in PF2. They are an absolutely critical component to take into account of any system analysis, but doubly so here, where the value of crits would be even greater (since you presumably don't count armor-DR twice). You certainly can't implement it the standard way (where AC drops one step per DR gained) without changing criticals, and thus disassembling the entire foundation of PF2. Add to that the way you deal more damage as you level up, significantly so (you might start out doing 1d8+4 damage and end up dealing 4d8+2d6+12 damage, with every attack). This should tell you that the plain armor-as-DR system makes assumptions that simply do not hold true of this particular iteration of D&D. Do you let each armor potency rune double its DR, for instance?

PS. I don't think it's particularly possible in 5E or indeed in any game of D&D either (to add armor-as-DR while preserving perfect balance), but there one balance might work just as well as another. But in PF2 this would likely mean that whole swaths of feats become more powerful at the expense of others. And when I say "swaths" I mean "literally hundreds". That makes the task much more work intensive, probably well past the point where the payoff isn't worth the effort.

Thank you for the input. Our DR house-rule is a bit different and I think it could be adapted to work with PF2e, but your right that I need to play it first. Here is what we do in 5e:

Spoiler

1. Armor, AC, and HP work as normal.
2. You gain an additional stat called bloodied hit points (BHP). BHP = STR mod + CON mod x Size (Medium = 1)
3. When your HP = 0 you take damage from your BHP
4. When you take a critical hit your HP takes max damage and if the hit is confirmed the extra damage is taken off your BHP.
5. DR reduces damage to BHP only (so only after your at 0 HP or on a crit)
6. DR = armor AC - 10.

I can see some issues as we currently use it, but I feel we could modify it to make it work.

Also, I don't need to make it work for all classes, just the ones we use (typically fighters and rogues with a wizard, ranger or druid thrown in hear or there)

 

[CapnZapp]

Thank you for the input. Our DR house-rule is a bit different and I think it could be adapted to work with PF2e, but your right that I need to play it first. Here is what we do in 5e:

Spoiler

1. Armor, AC, and HP work as normal.
2. You gain an additional stat called bloodied hit points (BHP). BHP = STR mod + CON mod x Size (Medium = 1)
3. When your HP = 0 you take damage from your BHP
4. When you take a critical hit your HP takes max damage and if the hit is confirmed the extra damage is taken off your BHP.
5. DR reduces damage to BHP only (so only after your at 0 HP or on a crit)
6. DR = armor AC - 10.

I can see some issues as we currently use it, but I feel we could modify it to make it work.

Also, I don't need to make it work for all classes, just the ones we use (typically fighters and rogues with a wizard, ranger or druid thrown in hear or there)

Spoiler

Hit points and "bloodied" hit points sound a bit like Vitality and Wounds, does it not?

Thank you for explaining. Since DR only applies to "Wound damage" its impact is less critical, I guess.

Regardless, damage scales quickly in PF2. In 5E, Str 20 and Con 20 and +2 full plate would allow you to soak 50 points of Wound damage. Even a fairly low-level monster can do 50 damage on a crit in PF2. At higher levels, monsters will do 50 damage on average, on any hit. Woe the halfling or gnome wizard (with maybe 25 Wounds).

My point is that any static amount scales poorly in PF2. Especially DR. While DR 10 will remain respectable for a very long time, I must confess I see little reason to mess with DR for a measly point or three for light armor wearers.

PF2 already has a mechanism for "DR". It's called Shield Block. Giv it a read: you will find you pay a lot to gain pretty mediocre DR. That's the balance of PF2 for ya.

Good luck.

 

[dave2008]

Spoiler

Hit points and "bloodied" hit points sound a bit like Vitality and Wounds, does it not?

Thank you for explaining. Since DR only applies to "Wound damage" its impact is less critical, I guess.

Regardless, damage scales quickly in PF2. In 5E, Str 20 and Con 20 and +2 full plate would allow you to soak 50 points of Wound damage. Even a fairly low-level monster can do 50 damage on a crit in PF2. At higher levels, monsters will do 50 damage on average, on any hit. Woe the halfling or gnome wizard (with maybe 25 Wounds).

My point is that any static amount scales poorly in PF2. Especially DR. While DR 10 will remain respectable for a very long time, I must confess I see little reason to mess with DR for a measly point or three for light armor wearers.

PF2 already has a mechanism for "DR". It's called Shield Block. Giv it a read: you will find you pay a lot to gain pretty mediocre DR. That's the balance of PF2 for ya.

Good luck.

Thanks for the input!