Pathfinder 2E Actual AP Play Experience

[CapnZapp]

You don't think a well made party can fight two average encounters together? I would have to check.

Allow me to clarify:

You absolutely can. Moderate + Moderate = Extreme.

What I'm saying is that you can't do it without losing a truckload of hit points. That is, you can't do it without taking significant downtime.

A party* can absolutely slaughter a whole level's worth of monsters in a single day. If:

• they don't care about the spellcasters much*
• they can take plenty of rests that are much longer than a mere 10 minutes. Sometimes you need 20 minutes, sometimes you need 80 minutes. (And this presupposes the Medicine skill. If you rely on a Cleric or, worse, potions, you will either not pull it off in a day, or you will go broke - consumables are terribly expensive in PF2)

*) remember, we're discussing relatively low-level parties still.
**) while our Cleric has been essential, the party would have been much better off with a fourth martial than the Wizard. This is, of course, because utility at low levels aren't essential, and, at least at low levels, the Wizard's damage output is second-tier at best. Once adventures demand fly or plane shift or polymorph or whatever we expect the Wizard to "come alive". Six whole levels of mediocrity is a heavy burden, though.

So if you're alright with the idea that the denizens of a dungeon stay put for several hours (if not days) without reacting to fallen comrades and guardians no matter how smart or organized they might be, you will have no problems with Paizo's adventures!

 

[CapnZapp]

Why is that? I am not familiar with PF2e in play, but I find it trivially easy to make encounters challenging for my players in 1e, 4e, and 5e of D&D. What is different about PF1 or PF2 that makes that difficult?

OK, maybe that is the issue. I never run APs, so maybe that's why it is easy for me!

I think you already know the answer, Dave.

In 5th Edition, you need to wholesale replace monsters to add a bit of challenge. As in take out the entire level 7 series of monsters and insert completely different level 12 monsters. Just adding a monster doesn't cut it. And you don't want to simply swamp the heroes, since that drags down play speed.

In comparison, taking the brutal edge off of a PF2 encounter can be as easy as just delaying one monster's entrance onto the battlefield by a single round. Yes, the balance is that razor sharp. (So the problem is really "only" me not liking the official adventure exactly as written. I hope everyone agrees I am not unable to resolve the issues. I'm mainly just bitching about having to, or at least wanting to, make changes when I promised the RAW experience!)

And you're right in that when you write your own adventures, you have different challenges. Like I said previous, when I wrote my own little scenariolets(?) back in the fall (waiting for EC), I didn't have the pacing issues we're discussing now.

And the reason why? Because I couldn't even imagine making every string of encounters so unrelentingly brutal and hard. Gosh, it almost reminds me of a certain ENWorld poster's own monster upgrades

 

[CapnZapp]

I feel like part of the issue has to do with the transition to level 1-20 APs.

In the PF1 APs, which ran from levels 1 to somewhere in the 13-17 range, they had space to let the adventure breathe a bit, and could sprinkle in a fair number of easy fights.

But now that the APs run from level 1-20, they have to cram as much XP into each encounter as possible. And the easiest way to do that is to make them really challenging fights...

Perhaps.

However, I suspect a couple other explanations:
b) that Paizo wants to step up the difficulty (having gotten that feedback)
c) that Paizo haven't yet mastered their new system, and that the written guidelines makes it harder than intended

It can also be d, of course:
d) that too many groups haven't yet mastered the game rules, that we haven't brutally minmaxed the naughty word out of the rules. Perhaps in a few years time, AoA and EC will fondly be remembered as cakewalks...?

 

[CapnZapp]

Second, I wasn't suggesting a free heal, but eliminating the arbitrary hour long recharge between using the Medicine skill. The PCs still use Medicine but it only takes 10 minutes and then they're on to the next fight.
Maybe instead of an hour between uses of Medicine it could be an hour OR until you're injured. (Maybe with a threshold so they don't stab themselves with a spoon for 1 point to proc the Medicine recharge.)

Sorry, but now you're touching upon one of my pet peeves with the system.

<aside>

Anytime I, the GM, decides to use the "yes" or "yes, but" gamesmastering style, I'm shut down by the rules themselves.

In this case, there already exists a feat that brings down the recharge time from one hour to 10 minutes: Continual Recovery.

You see? You basically can't ever just grant a shortcut because it "feels right", since this will often short-circuit another game element down the line. (Sometimes the feat you invalidate belongs to a specific class and comes online ten levels later, so my pet peeve is that you basically must master the entire game - and thousands of feats spread over multiple books - before you can make the smallest change or concession).

Another typical example is a character trying to catch a fleeing monster. "Can I jump over this low obstacle without spending X whole actions on clearing the obstacle". As an experienced GM you know there's lots of little corner cases like this. But you can't say "yes" since there is invariably a feat for that. Yes, no matter how obscure the advantage is, Paizo has likely created a feat that does something like that. By saying yes, you have just made a feat useless. In this case, maybe Rapid Mantel or Quick Climber.

Of course, doing this one or two times is fine. But I have realized Paizo just doesn't want the GM to adjudicate the game freely. They reserve that right for their feat bloat. In other words, the PF2 designers have already taken the right to explore and exploit every possible tweak. Every little +1 bonus or action expenditure or DC tweak is tightly under the game engine's control. After all, this is the way Paizo can publish loads and loads of new feats. The generous "yes" you hand out today, might just become an official feat in the next splatbook.

So PF2 is an incredibly locked-down game. Yes, despite Paizo promising a much more GM-enabling game (compared to PF1). It certainly does not encourage easy homebrewing or on-the-cuff GM:ing. In fact, if you ask me it actively and strenuously discourages it.

</aside>

 

[CapnZapp]

This really sounds like a critique of the AP, not really the game mechanics itself.

Absolutely. Here, let me quote myself!

(started a new thread since playing an official Adventure Path isn't necessarily identical to general PF2 play. Feel free to merge with the existing threads if you disagree a separate discussion is warranted. Thanks)

 

[dave2008]

Monsters out of the book in 1e, 2e, 3e, 4e, and 5e and PF1 were all weak against a well built party of experienced players. I won't comment on your players, but if I take some monsters out of the book and toss it at my players they will destroy those encounters. 5E started off promising for being able to use monsters out of the book. Then the players figured out how to make really powerful 5E characters using optional multiclass rules, feats, and bless. Made 5E super easy. I really had to modify the PF1 monsters to make them challenging. A solo PF dragon against a group of optimized, well-played PCs died in about a few rounds barely doing any damage in return.

I think you misunderstood my question. I asked why is it better (or preferable as you put it) to make encounters easier in PF2e than it is to make them harder in other systems?

With PF2 I pulled a Gelugon right out of the Bestiary with no modification against a six person lvl 10 party of experienced players optimized with a bard, took two of them down and chewed up party resources like a boss creature. I was surprised. I haven't been able to do that for decades against a six person level 10 party with my players. Just open up a monster book and toss it on the board to fight, especially one they know, and challenge them.

I've run 2 groups through 5e. One group I can challenge straight up with the MM monsters (they are not even remotely optimizer and have poor tactics and strategy) and general encounter guidelines. The other group is more advanced in their game play. However, I can also challenge them with monsters straight out of the MM, I just have to use higher CR monsters.

PS. I am discussing "solo" monster fights in both cases.

I usually heavily modify APs to challenge my party. The only AP module of a series I can use as written is generally the first one, maybe the second one. Once the party hits about 7th level, I have to heavily modify the APs to challenge them. Not this AP. My party is level 11 and I have been running the modules exactly as written. They are still heavily challenge and often have to take breaks between fights just to survive the next encounter. And this is the enemies as written in the book. No modification at all.

Haven't been able to do that for decades. I was pretty shocked.

I have no experience with running published adventures since the 80s so I really can't comment on this.

I do want to say that I like that PF2e monsters are more challenging (as @CapnZapp pointed out, I like to make strong monsters); however, the more I read them, read about them I am not sure I like how they got that way. Hopefully I will get a chance to play PF2e at some point to truly see them in action, but not likely until after this lockdown is over.

 

[CapnZapp]

That being said, the notion that it takes 1 hour to recover to full capacity, not 1 day, will certainly have an effect on how the game plays out. Or if I'm reading correctly, more so that it just takes a relatively short amount of time to recover to full health after each encounter, every time, all day, as long as you want.

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.

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.

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.

 

[CapnZapp]

You've dismissed a number of options here relying on precious resources, but earlier it sounded like you were dismayed that there's nothing in the game pushing the group to call off the adventure for the day - no sense of attrition. Maybe the solution could be that the players shouldn't have an hour between each encounter and they should be using precious resources to heal up faster, and that would introduce the attrition you're looking for.

Yes, except I don't dare to. Already at level 1 the players got shell-shocked over the brutal difficulty. I had to contort myself to justify why the main BBEG didn't just come out of hiding when the heroes were still at half health, which could easily have led to a TPK.

Theoretically, you're right. If the Cleric spends her spell slots in out of combat healing, there will be many more "let's call it a day and return tomorrow" decisions.

But how can I make the party do that? Especially when two players sit at the ready doing all the little cluttery dice rolling and calculating mandated by the Medicine feats... including keeping track of which character is immune against what type of treatment for 10 minutes, one hour or even one day...

I have experimented with reinforcements. That is, to associate a cost with spending time on resting. But what I mostly have accomplished is dragging the game to a stand-still since these extra encounters deplete nearly as much health as the rest lets them recover.

 

[CapnZapp]

however, the more I read them, read about them I am not sure I like how they got that way.

Please elaborate (in this or another thread)

 

[Schmoe]

Yes, except I don't dare to. Already at level 1 the players got shell-shocked over the brutal difficulty. I had to contort myself to justify why the main BBEG didn't just come out of hiding when the heroes were still at half health, which could easily have led to a TPK.

Theoretically, you're right. If the Cleric spends her spell slots in out of combat healing, there will be many more "let's call it a day and return tomorrow" decisions.

But how can I make the party do that? Especially when two players sit at the ready doing all the little cluttery dice rolling and calculating mandated by the Medicine feats... including keeping track of which character is immune against what type of treatment for 10 minutes, one hour or even one day...

That's a good question. Fundamentally, the very existence of an "inexhaustible" supply of healing is what is driving the players to force the time issue. If Treat Wounds didn't exist (and abilities like it), the players would simply ration out the few expendable resources they have, move on, and quit for the day when they were out of expendable healing.

In a way I think this parallels the one-and-done problem - fight a tough battle, then take a full rest to get back up to full health. The only difference in this case is the time scale of one hour compared to one day, and of course some tricks can't be recovered over an hour, but the nature of the problem is the same - how do you encourage adventure pacing that doesn't feel artificial and disjointed?

I can only really think of two ideas. The first one is really about adventure design. There needs to be a healthy mix of encounters, along with realistic behavior from opponents, so that intelligent play can allow the players to piecemeal their way through the adventure and avoid most of the danger until the climax, but poor play could bring down the wrath of an entire dungeon and potentially force retreat. Many 1e adventures were setup this way, but from the sound of Age of Ashes I don't think that's the kind of AP it is.

The second is to just dispel with HP as a limited resource outside the context of a single encounter. Assume everyone is at full health at the start of every encounter. Then the limited resources become more about abilities. That obviously requires some house-ruling, which it sounds like you don't want to do. I never played 4e, but my impression is it may have leaned in this direction.

In all cases, though, HP are only limited in respect to a particular time frame. Whether that time frame is an encounter, 10 minutes, an hour, or a day, there exists some amount of time after which you should assume the whole party is healed up. And I think it's reasonable to assume that the players will figure that out, and they will naturally gravitate toward resting up "as long as it takes."

I have experimented with reinforcements. That is, to associate a cost with spending time on resting. But what I mostly have accomplished is dragging the game to a stand-still since these extra encounters deplete nearly as much health as the rest lets them recover.