Pathfinder 2E How is PF2E prep and GMing?

[Celtavian]

Well, I will simply assume you really don't believe that's an answer good enough. (Hint: if "all you have to do is not give them hours of downtime" that means "the whole adventure will be over, the sandbox emptied, in hours instead of weeks") Obviously you realize the value of a D&D-ish game to offer support for what you called the AD&D gaming style where you simply must rely on nightly rests - not in the short term (that's why we have Clerics) of course, but in the long term.

All I'm doing here is pointing out that far from offering advice on how to achieve this in their latest game, Paizo doesn't even seem to remember that the playing style exists.

I'm not much understanding your viewpoint as I don't recall hit point attrition being an issue for about 20 plus years now in D&D games. Can you provide examples in PF1 or 5E of an attrition style of play that doesn't use resource attrition like spell slots, combat healing, and daily abilities more than hit points past the low levels? Or are you primarily talking about low level play where a party runs out of resources much sooner?

I'm playing Extinction Curse right now. We've had to take quite a few days off after getting wasted by the encounters in that game due to resource attrition, specifically combat healing. You're making it sound as though your players are trouncing through Extinction Curse with Medicine like it's nothing. I'm not sure how they 're doing that given some of the encounters are very, very dangerous, especially so if you don't have the right means to counter them.

 

[Celtavian]

There have been more words written about attrition in this thread than anywhere else in the known universe.

Anyway, it sounds like I would want to "zone" the sandbox into levels or at least sign post the levels of individual encounters/or quests.

Definitely zone it into levels. It's like other versions of D&D contrary to some of what you're hearing. You can create a sandbox like Keep on the Borderlands, the original classic sandbox. Even in that early version of the game, you still didn't want your level 1 players running into the owlbear or evil priest area too early. There is some small chance they'd survive, but not likely. It's similar in PF2 within a given level range.

5E Bounded Accuracy did make it so orcs at least can do some damage to a high level party, but I never saw 5E characters challenged by kobolds or orcs out of the book unless the DM did some white room math of a thousand orcs standing at the perfect distance in an open area firing bows at a party after beating them on initiative. And PF2 runs much like other versions of the game save with greater balance. I think you'll have an easier time making single hex encounters feel more challenging than in nearly every other version of D&D in the past 20 years. Your party shouldn't die I hope, but there is a chance of it.

Even now I'm reading a purple worm encounter in an AP I'm running and wondering if this single monster is going to kill my party. I've never seen a Purple Worm this tough. I hope he doesn't eat someone and carry them off somewhere to die. On paper this Purple Worm looks insanely tough. We'll see how it goes. That's how it can be in a hex if the monster has some tough abilities.

 

[CapnZapp]

Is it perfect? Nope. Did it accomplish what it set out to accomplish? I would say yes, very much so.

Sorry, but in a post-5E world that is not nearly enough.

 

[CapnZapp]

I'm not much understanding your viewpoint as I don't recall hit point attrition being an issue for about 20 plus years now in D&D games.

This very thread should have reminded you the attrition playing style isn't a ghost from 20 years ago.

So of course you understand my viewpoint. You just choose to dismiss it because it is very inconvenient from the viewpoint of a game that have entirely forgotten about it.

 

[CapnZapp]

It's like other versions of D&D contrary to some of what you're hearing.

If what you're hearing is "you can always have the heroes run away from the purple worm" meaning that you can just populate your sandbox as usual, then, no, PF2 is not just like any other version of D&D.

Not unless you use the proficiency without level, that is.

Pathfinder 2 is relentless in its sharp level ranges. Every single level's difference between the party and the monster makes a distinct difference, one that you recognize when you GM the monster in play. Your players can play an entire campaign and never face a single L+4 enemy, and still come away feeling the monsters are extremely dangerous.

Is this a complaint? Not really. It is just stating the fact that PF2 is not built for classic sandbox play out the box. Contrary to some of what you're hearing...

 

[Celtavian]

This very thread should have reminded you the attrition playing style isn't a ghost from 20 years ago.

So of course you understand my viewpoint. You just choose to dismiss it because it is very inconvenient from the viewpoint of a game that have entirely forgotten about it.

No. I do not. I have not experienced attrition by hit points in nearly 20 years save at low level in the post-2E era. If that is your experience and the experience of others, so be it. My group has always ran with a well-designed healer in every party. We did not experience hit point attrition past low levels unless the DM took measures to design for it. We usually retired with the party at full hit points and healing resources remaining in nearly every encounter not designed to push resources to the limit. I do not see a difference in attrition play than I saw in previous versions of D&D dating back to 3E. Healing spells were more powerful in other versions of the game, especially so in 3E.

Suffice it to say, I don't see how PF2 differs from PF1 or 5E as far as hit point attrition goes. I will leave it at that as I doubt we will agree.

 

[Celtavian]

Sorry, but in a post-5E world that is not nearly enough.

We will see if that is true in due time. PF2 is a different game catering to a different audience. It is unlikely to ever compete with 5E and shouldn't even try. They should be looking to make their fans happy and they addressed many of the complaints of their fans. Now we'll see their fans want what they asked for and the measures taken to achieve it.

 

[Celtavian]

If what you're hearing is "you can always have the heroes run away from the purple worm" meaning that you can just populate your sandbox as usual, then, no, PF2 is not just like any other version of D&D.

Not unless you use the proficiency without level, that is.

Pathfinder 2 is relentless in its sharp level ranges. Every single level's difference between the party and the monster makes a distinct difference, one that you recognize when you GM the monster in play. Your players can play an entire campaign and never face a single L+4 enemy, and still come away feeling the monsters are extremely dangerous.

Is this a complaint? Not really. It is just stating the fact that PF2 is not built for classic sandbox play out the box. Contrary to some of what you're hearing...

I guess we'll disagree on this. Keep on the Borderlands is the classic sandbox dungeon of my old generation and it was populated with monsters of a particular level range. In PF2, you very much can use a classic sandbox style of play as in making a sandbox with a given level range while ensuring players know to stay out of certain areas where the monsters are too high a level. That is literally how sandboxes were built when I was young. What module do you consider a classic sandbox? When I think of sandbox play styles I think of Keep on the Borderlands or Isle of Dread. Both of those modules seem very easy to make in PF2. I would even argue you could make a fight with a single T-rex or a group of natives seem more formidable than you could in other versions of the game. I don't get it I guess. I grew up playing in sandboxes. They always used creatures of an appropriate level challenge to give you enough xp to level and provide a reasonable challenge. I'm an old buy that's been playing since the red box, so we must be from different eras and our experiences are not crossing.

 

[kenada]

I guess we'll disagree on this. Keep on the Borderlands is the classic sandbox dungeon of my old generation and it was populated with monsters of a particular level range. In PF2, you very much can use a classic sandbox style of play as in making a sandbox with a given level range while ensuring players know to stay out of certain areas where the monsters are too high a level. That is literally how sandboxes were built when I was young. What module do you consider a classic sandbox? When I think of sandbox play styles I think of Keep on the Borderlands or Isle of Dread. Both of those modules seem very easy to make in PF2. I would even argue you could make a fight with a single T-rex or a group of natives seem more formidable than you could in other versions of the game. I don't get it I guess. I grew up playing in sandboxes. They always used creatures of an appropriate level challenge to give you enough xp to level and provide a reasonable challenge. I'm an old buy that's been playing since the red box, so we must be from different eras and our experiences are not crossing.

It’s probably generational, but I got started with 3e, and I agree with you. I think the issue is what one expects from encounter design. The ‘modern’ view is that players must be presented with balanced encounters they can expect to win. Obviously, I do not share that view.

 

[Numidius]

A question: in a sandbox style game, Recall Knowledge/other skills, while approaching an encounter, but before actually engaging it, wouldn't give enough info to the players in order to decide if a monster/situation is within their reach, as in level appropriate, doable?