PF2 and the adventure day

[CapnZapp]

To my personal surprise, the thing one of my players said he disliked most about 5E was the need to have X encounters a day.

That is, have less and the long-rest classes gain the upper hand; have more and the short-rest classes gain the advantage.

Now, what, if any, discussion about encounter expectations is there regarding Pathfinder 2?

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

To my personal surprise, the thing one of my players said he disliked most about 5E was the need to have X encounters a day.

I think that's a common view, and not just about 5e. I know GMs (for 3e and 4e) who feel the same way. They want to present an exciting encounter. It's hard to do four or five resource-spending encounters per day without being too "gamist". (Fitting five encounters into an environment is more difficult than coming up with five numerically balanced encounters, IMO/IME.)

I think Paizo would avoid a lot of discussion about "encounter expectations" because it would sound "too much" like 4e. (That's my favorite edition, and 4e having encounter-specific resources is one reason... but there's quite a few people who do not like that.) I think that's the case even if Paizo has a good tool.

 

[Zardnaar]

The set encounter design thing is a big drawback of modern D&D. Combined with the hit point attrition model it causes various issues.

 

[FrogReaver]

IMO. No system with vanician style casting can be balanced between classes without extending the adventuring day to 20+ rounds of combat.

Whether you have short rests and short rest style abilities, the problem still persists.

 

[CapnZapp]

The set encounter design thing is a big drawback of modern D&D. Combined with the hit point attrition model it causes various issues.

This is a comment that just makes the status quo out to be some goddamn god-given natural constant. It might appear sage and wise but I find it adds nothing to the discussion.

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO. No system with vanician style casting can be balanced between classes without extending the adventuring day to 20+ rounds of combat.

Whether you have short rests and short rest style abilities, the problem still persists.

Yes, but back in the 3.x days we didn't talk about long and short rests.

Could it be that introducing those terms; formalizing the dichotomy, could be a bad thing?

 

[Tony Vargas]

To my personal surprise, the thing one of my players said he disliked most about 5E was the need to have X encounters a day.

That's just D&D from time immemorial (if you can't remember 1974, anyway).

5e is nice enough to share an approximate value of X (ok, and Y, short rests) at which it's nominally intended to balance.

Since Paizo is sensibly done with trying to be more D&D than D&D, PF2 needn't stay with that attrition paradigm.

Yes, but back in the 3.x days we didn't talk about long and short rests.

But, you still took them in 3.x: slept to prepare spells, took a few minutes out after every encounter to use the WoCLW. Really, no different from sleeping to memorize spells and resting (maybe even binding wounds, if your DM was nice) the balance of the turn after combat in, 1e.

Short rests are only meaningfully distinct from encounters, though, because 5e made them take an hour. And that's only a balance concern because a few classes have more significant short-rest resources than most.

Could it be that introducing those terms; formalizing the dichotomy, could be a bad thing?

No.

And, it's not a dichotomy, it's more complex than that. There are short & long rests, encounters, and there are short/long rest-recharge, at-will, and situational abilities.

5e has high-power/versatility long-rest-recharge heavy classes (the traditional full casters, plus Bard); moderate-power/versatility long-rest-recharge & strong at-will classes (the traditional half-casters, plus EK & AT), a high-power/versatility short-rest-recharge heavy class (the warlock), a high-power/no-versatility long-rest-recharge & strong at-will class (the barbarian), moderate-power/versatility short-test recharge & strong at-will (Monk, plus BM), modest-power/slight-versatility short-rest-rechage plus strong at-will(Champion), and no-recharge, fairly situational (Thief, Assassin).

Hard to believe PF2 will have a hard time competing with /that/, whatever it does - yet it not only must, it has essentially no chance.

 

[CapnZapp]

That's just D&D from time immemorial (if you can't remember 1974, anyway).

5e is nice enough to share an approximate value of X (ok, and Y, short rests) at which it's nominally intended to balance.

Since Paizo is sensibly done with trying to be more D&D than D&D, PF2 needn't stay with that attrition paradigm.

But, you still took them in 3.x: slept to prepare spells, took a few minutes out after every encounter to use the WoCLW. Really, no different from sleeping to memorize spells and resting (maybe even binding wounds, if your DM was nice) the balance of the turn after combat in, 1e.

You're really good at stating what we already know, did you know that?

Short rests are only meaningfully distinct from encounters, though, because 5e made them take an hour. And that's only a balance concern because a few classes have more significant short-rest resources than most.

So... there is a difference, then.

Now, apply this discovery and do over your post, and things might get interesting

 

[Parmandur]

To my personal surprise, the thing one of my players said he disliked most about 5E was the need to have X encounters a day.

That is, have less and the long-rest classes gain the upper hand; have more and the short-rest classes gain the advantage.

Now, what, if any, discussion about encounter expectations is there regarding Pathfinder 2?

IIRC, there wasn't really much in the encounter building department in the playtest document: they provided prebuilt scenarios for people to run and report, probably to help them get the data to calculate the guidelines. No solid info on the results until the final game is out, I reckon.

 

[Parmandur]

Hard to believe PF2 will have a hard time competing with /that/, whatever it does - yet it not only must, it has essentially no chance.

WotC spent a lot of time and resources on developing the asymmetrical system, certainly.