Pathfinder 2E How is PF2E prep and GMing?

[kenada]

I think it works fine (being that I’m running such a game), but the CRB and GMG don’t provide much guidance for doing so. The assumption is you’re playing a story-driven game, and things like sandboxes and hexcrawls are another way to experience that (or to “decide how to go about it” as the sidebar on p. 44 of the GMG suggests). However, the tools are there if you know how to use them.

 

[CapnZapp]

What is relevant is if the system holds up to whatever the best the players can muster without the GM figuring out how to compensate, and PF2 does because each individual encounter is a challenge without attrition-based changes wearing the party down.

Absolutely. The only lack is a small section (perhaps only in the GMG) titled "if you want to introduce attrition into your PF2"

 

[Reynard]

Just to be clear it sounds like hit point attrition is not a thing but does PF2 still have resource attrition such as spells per day, uses of rage or chi, etc? Or is it literally built for the party to nova every encounter?

 

[CapnZapp]

However, the tools are there if you know how to use them.

That depends on your definition of "tools". Let me clarify:

The game is absolutely no help. It provides no tools, and it doesn't even mention attrition as a variant way of playing.

Does that mean it's hard to accomplish? Not at all, if you know what you're doing. You just need to make sure PCs can't heal up for free: scouring the CRB for skills, feats, actions and class abilities*. I just wish I didn't get the sense nobody at Paizo had even considered the idea to use attrition...

*) and make sure you telegraph dangerous encounters

 

[Campbell]

Just to be clear it sounds like hit point attrition is not a thing but does PF2 still have resource attrition such as spells per day, uses of rage or chi, etc? Or is it literally built for the party to nova every encounter?

Attrition of resources matters, but the slow gradual attrition of hit points over hours is not really a feature of the game. Part of what makes combat feel so exciting is that even against low threat encounters your hit points are always under threat. Resources like spells, consumables, and focus spells (which are a combined resource). In combat healing spells like Heal and Soothe are a really big deal.

Over the short term managing recovery from combat can be crucial. Outside of combat you basically operate in 10 minute turns (like B/X or AD&D). You have to decide who gets healed, who is repairing shields, who is recovering focus spells, who is standing guard, and the like.

 

[CapnZapp]

Just to be clear it sounds like hit point attrition is not a thing but does PF2 still have resource attrition such as spells per day, uses of rage or chi, etc? Or is it literally built for the party to nova every encounter?

You still need to rest for the night to regain spells. A common reason to stop adventuring for the day is simply because its more fun for the casters to have spells.

Magic items often have daily usages too. And poison, disease and curses can nicely stop a party in their tracks for quite a while

But most everything else is governed by the 10 minute (or 1 hour) "cooldown", allowing martial heroes to keep whacking forever.

 

[CapnZapp]

Attrition of resources matters, but the slow gradual attrition of hit points over hours is not really a feature of the game. Part of what makes combat feel so exciting is that even against low threat encounters your hit points are always under threat. Resources like spells, consumables, and focus spells (which are a combined resource). In combat healing spells like Heal and Soothe are a really big deal.

It bears repeating it's entirely possible to create four heroes with none of these resources between them. (Let's call that playing PF2 on Ironman difficulty . But woe the group where neither players nor GM realizes this because it's never discussed)

In-combat healing is important yes. And that obviously limits the adventuring day.

But you wouldn't want to spend precious combat heal resources (such as the Heal spell) outside of combat precisely because it's so easy to obtain free alternatives (such as Medicine).

Over the short term managing recovery from combat can be crucial. Outside of combat you basically operate in 10 minute turns (like B/X or AD&D). You have to decide who gets healed, who is repairing shields, who is recovering focus spells, who is standing guard, and the like.

Except I've found in practice heroes will want to heal up completely whenever possible. Once that's a given, whether it takes 20 or 40 or 80 minutes is just clutter. The decisions you make quickly become routine, then repetitive.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm a bit confused by your statement so I want to ask: does it hold up if you want attrition to wear the party down? I mean some of my group's best moments come out when we are wearing thin on resources. Just want to make sure that is still an option.

Attrition still exists, and is still an important consideration - it's just not treated the way it is in other similar systems.

There are still resources on daily limits, and the things which can keep you going 'indefinitely' always cost time and often also involve chance, so every party will at some point reach the point when they'd be better off calling it a day rather than pressing on .

The difference is that an encounter being "appropriately challenging" isn't based on a particular assumed degree of attrition. By which I mean where one system might tell the GM a party should be able to handle 4 encounters of a particular difficulty before needing to rest because each of those should use up around 25% of available resources, and thus expects that you're going to have that many encounters on the days that are meant to matter so the difficulty overall "feels right" - PF2 sets up encounters so that they are challenging even if you are at full resources, yet surmountable even if you don't have limited resources left to burn.

 

[kenada]

That depends on your definition of "tools". Let me clarify:

The game is absolutely no help. It provides no tools, and it doesn't even mention attrition as a variant way of playing.

Does that mean it's hard to accomplish? Not at all, if you know what you're doing. You just need to make sure PCs can't heal up for free: scouring the CRB for skills, feats, actions and class abilities*. I just wish I didn't get the sense nobody at Paizo had even considered the idea to use attrition...

*) and make sure you telegraph dangerous encounters

By tools I mean exploration mode and encounter, creating, and hazard building guidelines that actually work. Let me amend what I said earlier to say it gives you a foundation for that kind of game. The part that’s missing are the procedures for using that framework. However, if you know how to run such a game, then that framework should give you what you need.

If you don’t know how to run such a game, then PF2 won’t help you learn how. That’s a fair criticism, though it’s not really something modern games teach in general. PF2 is a bit better in having encounter mode, though it could certainly stand to be a bit more prescriptive about how you should go about using it.

 

[dave2008]

The difference is that an encounter being "appropriately challenging" isn't based on a particular assumed degree of attrition. By which I mean where one system might tell the GM a party should be able to handle 4 encounters of a particular difficulty before needing to rest because each of those should use up around 25% of available resources, and thus expects that you're going to have that many encounters on the days that are meant to matter so the difficulty overall "feels right" - PF2 sets up encounters so that they are challenging even if you are at full resources, yet surmountable even if you don't have limited resources left to burn.

OK that doesn't sound like attrition to me, but I assume I'm missing something.