Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Celtavian]

I haven't found combats to be quick in any edition of D&D/PF including 5E or PF2. Fast combats really depend on the players. My players tend to overthink everything. Sometimes I sit as the DM as they overthink the combat thinking "Why didn't you have your action planned before it reached your turn?" Slow player information processing slows the game down more than the rules. As a DM I will gloss over a rule or forget a round or two and not worry about it to keep the game flowing. Oh well, combat is combat, sometimes people forget things even in real life. So it fits it would happen in game. Just keep going and get the combat done.

PF2 combats take a while like past editions. And players are still often the slowest part. And the fact I tend to run combats in a coordinated fashion once the players set off a series of events in a given area that brings everyone running. I don't like to run encounters as single encounters unless it fits like a party taking on a dragon alone in a cave or wandering one encounter a day exploration encounters. My combats are usually big multi-room encounters with 10 to 15 varied challenge monsters taking individual actions on different initiatives closing in on the PCs from multiple areas in an encounter area. That is never going to run fast no matter the edition. It didn't run fast in 5E or 3E or PF1 or PF 2.

The main difference for me is on the back end, not in the game play. I knew the Pf1 rules very well. I could run combats very quickly. But on the back end it took me far more time to set up encounters in PF1 than it does in PF2 and 5E. Which lowers the overall time I spend on encounters as a DM. The actual in game combats run about the same amount of time and hopefully will improve as I commit more of the PF2 rules to memory. But the back end of PF2 has been substantially lower because I've been able to run monsters and NPCs as written in the Bestiary and monster books without modification. And buffing and spell strategy does not require as intense preparation as it did in PF1/3E. It's about as complex to build and run encounters as 5E from a DM perspective with better balanced monsters out of the book for players using feats, multiclassing, and magic items.

 

[dave2008]

I haven't found combats to be quick in any edition of D&D/PF including 5E or PF2. Fast combats really depend on the players. My players tend to overthink everything. Sometimes I sit as the DM as they overthink the combat thinking "Why didn't you have your action planned before it reached your turn?"

Have you ever tried a time limit? I give players 30 sec max to figure out what they are doing, and make all to hit and damage rolls for their turn. I found this keeps things moving and people engaged more. IMP, it also helps mimic the frenzy battle more at the table. Players may be resistant at first, but really come to enjoy it in the end (at least that was the case for my group).

EDIT: We finish a typical combat in less than 10 minutes real time.

 

[Celtavian]

Have you ever tried a time limit? I give players 30 sec max to figure out what they are doing, and make all to hit and damage rolls for their turn. I found this keeps things moving and people engaged more. IMP, it also helps mimic the frenzy battle more at the table. Players may be resistant at first, but really come to enjoy it in the end (at least that was the case for my group).

EDIT: We finish a typical combat in less than 10 minutes real time.

10 minutes? Wow. Only single encounters against something fairly easy finish in 10 minutes. It took about 4 or 5 hours for the encounter last night. My players would never allow me to put a time limit on them. I play pretty ruthlessly and I play fast as a DM unless a rule is new and not committed to memory as I have everything planned out before they play. If I killed them forcing them to play fast, they'd likely quit playing and be mad. If I didn't let the players think for a while how to defeat the encounter puzzle I have created against them, they would likely die more often than not. My encounters are often like some puzzle trap you walk into and it sets off a series of events with casters that are going to leverage and support the enemies. It can be quite nasty. I have to let them think about how to counter it. I just wish it would go faster and they would realize everything is not going to be optimal on their part. They don't have to think until they make the perfectly optimal decision every time and I'm not always going to tell them who has the best AC or who is resistant to what until they test their abilities against them.

 

[dave2008]

10 minutes? Wow. Only single encounters against something fairly easy finish in 10 minutes. It took about 4 or 5 hours for the encounter last night. My players would never allow me to put a time limit on them. I play pretty ruthlessly and I play fast as a DM unless a rule is new and not committed to memory as I have everything planned out before they play. If I killed them forcing them to play fast, they'd likely quit playing and be mad. If I didn't let the players think for a while how to defeat the encounter puzzle I have created against them, they would likely die more often than not. My encounters are often like some puzzle trap you walk into and it sets off a series of events with casters that are going to leverage and support the enemies. It can be quite nasty. I have to let them think about how to counter it. I just wish it would go faster and they would realize everything is not going to be optimal on their part. They don't have to think until they make the perfectly optimal decision every time and I'm not always going to tell them who has the best AC or who is resistant to what until they test their abilities against them.

We used to play like that way when we started 4e, but just felt like it was breaking the immersion of a 6 second round for the players to perseverate on their options, tactics, and actions. We tried a few options and settled on 30 seconds per turn and it works great for us. It has been a game changer for us in that it has made combat encounters feel much more real and tense (to us). I mean, when a combat was taking 2 hours in real time and only 30 sec. in game time it just felt wrong. There was only so much we could stretch our dissociation, but everyone/group has different issues and tolerances to be addressed.

Now, to clarify, I should state the typical combat encounter might be 10 minutes, but the average is higher as we have some that push 30 minutes or even an hour. Social encounters are typically loner too. Finally, I should also note that I've been playing with this group for 30 yrs so we make game decisions (house rules, time management, etc.) as a group, therefore there is no issue of buy-in. We all agree before we do something and we are happy to change if it isn't working.

 

[CapnZapp]

I haven't found combats to be quick in any edition of D&D/PF including 5E or PF2.

My experience is the same, with the notable exception of 4E (for the reasons I've detailed upthread. Or was it a different thread? Lots of threads.)

Fast combats really depend on the players. My players tend to overthink everything.

Are you me?

But on the back end it took me far more time to set up encounters in PF1 than it does in PF2 and 5E.

I didn't DM PF1 because I had already given up on 3.5 - precisely for this exact reason.

 

[MaskedGuy]

I remember when my bi weekly Reign of Winter game's GM managed to have entire campaign(without shortening it) last under a year They didn't take time to think what they did on their turns and they kinda forced every player to plan ahead for their own turns.

Sooo yeah, how long encounters last is definitely table thing :'D That is fastest I've seen entire AP been completed ever and it was in bi weekly campaign of all things

 

[CapnZapp]

Have you ever tried a time limit?

I've thought about it, but it would probably kill off the enjoyment my players are deriving from playing - trying to minmax DPR every round.

At least two players have a tendency to rather pass up an offer of an afternoon's worth of playing boardgames, depending on who's playing and what the game is. I suspect this is because they rather not play than be reminded of how slow they are (some of my friends are more assertive than others, not shying away from putting time pressure on others), and how prone to AP (analysis paralysis) they are. They basically play only co-op games. (Of course, ttrpgs is the ideal co-op game). In short, I have players that hate being asked to make a move without full information and time for a full analysis. Even being told "it's been fifteen minutes, you need to make a move now" can ruin their day. Of course, having to wait that long ruin everybody else's day.

 

[CapnZapp]

EDIT: We finish a typical combat in less than 10 minutes real time.

When we play 3E, 5E or PF2, we typically finish a combat in 30-60 minutes.

When we played 4E, we typically finished a combat in 3-6 hours. (Often a session turned out to be a small bit of roleplaying followed by a single combat and then everybody had to leave for the night. It was unsustainable)

 

[CapnZapp]

double post

 

[CapnZapp]

Have you ever tried a time limit?

Regarding your to my previous reply, @dave2008 , I guess the downside of having analytical players (that easily absorb huge rules amounts) is... having analytical players