Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[Gorgon Zee]

If you try to shoot someone with an arrow, and the resolution mechanic for shooting arrows can't even tell us whether you hit, then that's a worthless resolution mechanic.

I think it's a bit extreme to write off all of D&D's combat mechanics as "worthless". D&D has always been cagey on what hit points represent -- presenting them as a mix of luck, physical and magic -- and so it's never been definitive about telling you if an arrow hits you.

D&D lets you choose the narrative. Mechanically, an arrow does 8 hit points (say). It's up to you to say what the narrative effect is on the 100 hit point fighter. For me, I tend to describe hits leaving you with over half your hits as near misses, scratches and bruises. But if it's falling damage, it's clearly not just near misses -- it's bruises and so on.

In contrast Fate is very clear on this; if you only take stress damage, it is never a wound or injury; only when it goes through your stress to cause a consequence is it clearly an actual injury.

I think what you're looking for is a crunchy system (so not Fate) that has explicit rules that clearly state what the physical effects of damage are without the GM needing to make stuff up (so not D&D). Savage Worlds would be my next guess as a system for you, but I think the emphasis on "fun" over "realistic" will turn you off, so I guess, like others, I'm left with Rolemaster as the most likely system to satisfy you.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think it's a bit extreme to write off all of D&D's combat mechanics as "worthless".

Not all of D&D's combat mechanics, no. Only the attack and damage rolls, specifically in editions of the game where we can't just say that a hit is a hit. Much of the rest of the mechanics, such as the contribution to accuracy and damage as a result of innate ability and skill (as well as magical enhancements, circumstances, etc), are perfectly reasonable.

D&D lets you choose the narrative. Mechanically, an arrow does 8 hit points (say). It's up to you to say what the narrative effect is on the 100 hit point fighter. For me, I tend to describe hits leaving you with over half your hits as near misses, scratches and bruises. But if it's falling damage, it's clearly not just near misses -- it's bruises and so on.

That's not a feature. That's a cop out. They force the GM to try and find some consistent explanation for what's happening, because they know that they've written a system where no consistent solution exists. As customers, we deserve better treatment than that.

I think what you're looking for is a crunchy system (so not Fate) that has explicit rules that clearly state what the physical effects of damage are without the GM needing to make stuff up (so not D&D).

What I want is a moderately-crunchy system that clearly states how hitting someone with a weapon means they've been hit by a weapon. That doesn't require any more detail than AD&D 2E had. What I really want is just AD&D 2E, but without all the janky inefficient 80's design.

 

[glass]

Not all of D&D's combat mechanics, no. Only the attack and damage rolls, specifically in editions of the game where we can't just say that a hit is a hit.

Which, as has been more than adequately established, is literally all of them.

_
glass.

 

[nevin]

Okay, so... don't take it to the extreme. There are significant diminishing returns as you seek out further and further levels of details, but that first level of details - whether or not the arrow actually hits - is fantastically important to the narrative.

If you try to shoot someone with an arrow, and the resolution mechanic for shooting arrows can't even tell us whether you hit, then that's a worthless resolution mechanic.

I'm really struggling to understand what it is you are fighting about. fighter has a 100 hitpits. arrow hits for 8 pts of damange. fighter has 92 hitpts. for 99 percent of the gaming community that's all they need to hear. Some are going to take it as blood spewing out some are going to take it as something else but the mechanic is fairly cut and dried. Descriptions by different DM's will vary.

I will say D&D has tried over the years to nail everything down with more "realistic and specific" ombat and it's either bombed or faded away. The game is just better when there is some "fuzzy areas" where players can imagine things on their own withouth being told everything that happens. It sounds to me Like you want a video game.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Not all of D&D's combat mechanics, no. Only the attack and damage rolls, specifically in editions of the game where we can't just say that a hit is a hit. Much of the rest of the mechanics, such as the contribution to accuracy and damage as a result of innate ability and skill (as well as magical enhancements, circumstances, etc), are perfectly reasonable.


That's not a feature. That's a cop out. They force the GM to try and find some consistent explanation for what's happening, because they know that they've written a system where no consistent solution exists. As customers, we deserve better treatment than that.


What I want is a moderately-crunchy system that clearly states how hitting someone with a weapon means they've been hit by a weapon. That doesn't require any more detail than AD&D 2E had. What I really want is just AD&D 2E, but without all the janky inefficient 80's design.

FWIW, there's always the various stamina/injury (or wounds/vitality) variant rules, which are present in many editions as 'official variants.' PF2 has this: Stamina - Rules - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

Generally the goal is to specify which hit points are meat points a little more clearly. But, as other have allude to, this variant never seems to catch on with the audience overall for whatever reason - but it's popular enough that it never quite goes away. Speaking for myself, I personally prefer this variant (for all the reasons you might) , just not enough to leave a game that doesn't use it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Which, as has been more than adequately established, is literally all of them.

In editions prior to 4E, you can say that every hit is (at the very least) a physical impact, because evidence of such an impact does not literally vanish overnight.

The fact that you chose to not say such a thing, for whatever reason, doesn't change the fact that it was at least an option.

I'm really struggling to understand what it is you are fighting about.
[...]
I will say D&D has tried over the years to nail everything down with more "realistic and specific" combat and it's either bombed or faded away. The game is just better when there is some "fuzzy areas" where players can imagine things on their own without being told everything that happens. It sounds to me Like you want a video game.

I just want to be able to say, with reasonable certainty and without immediate contradiction, that rolling a hit on the attack roll means the attack actually hit. I want a physical model that gives the minimum possible level of detail, instead of a purely gamist mechanic that doesn't represent anything.

Generally the goal is to specify which hit points are meat points a little more clearly. But, as other have allude to, this variant never seems to catch on with the audience overall for whatever reason - but it's popular enough that it never quite goes away.

It never catches on, because they implement it poorly. They assume you need to increase the complexity of the rules, in order to tell whether or not an attack actually hits; instead of just using the existing rules, and saying that a hit is a hit.

 

[Gorgon Zee]

What I want is a moderately-crunchy system that clearly states how hitting someone with a weapon means they've been hit by a weapon ... What I really want is just AD&D 2E, but without all the janky inefficient 80's design.

Sadly, AD&D is no different from any other edition in being vague about what hit points represent. Gygax even spent a long, Rasputin-laden section describing how the game was not going to tell you what it represented. It starts:

It is quite unreasonable to assume that as a character gains levels of ability in his or her class that a corresponding gain in actual ability to sustain physical damage takes place. It is preposterous to state such an assumption, for if we are to assume that a man is killed by a sword thrust which does 4 hit points of damage, we must similarly assume that a hero could, on the average, withstand five such thrusts before being slain! Why then the increase in hit points? Because these reflect both the actual physical ability of the character to withstand damage — as indicated by constitution bonuses — and a commensurate increase in such areas as skill in combat and similar life-or-death situations, the “sixth sense” which warns the individual of some otherwise unforeseen events, sheer luck, and the fantastic provisions of magical protections and/or divine protection. Therefore, constitution affects both actual ability to withstand physical punishment hit points (physique) and the immeasurable areas which involve the sixth sense and luck (fitness).

It's typical Gygaxian prose, but it's consistent with every edition -- hit points are a mix of various factors; there is no "one true representation" for what they are, and if you're describing loss of hits narratively, you're free to describe it as physical damage, luck, magic, divine protection or whatever.

For Gygax, 4 hits of damage could equally well be described as:

• The blow connects, but your physical strength allows you to keep going
• Your skill in combat allows you to parry the blow, but it's wearing you down
• Your "sixth sense" allow you dig that attack -- this time
• By sheer luck, it misses you
• Your magical armor takes the blow with only slight dings
• Athena's blessings make the attack feel light as air

Or, I guess, in theory you could describe it as a mix, but that seems overkill ...

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Sadly, AD&D is no different from any other edition in being vague about what hit points represent. Gygax even spent a long, Rasputin-laden section describing how the game was not going to tell you what it represented.

I am familiar with the passage, and regret that you felt it necessary to copy the whole thing out again. The thing is, that whole passage is what I described earlier as "a description of the rules, rather than the actual rules."

To put it another way, anyone can say how they think the rules work, but if the actual rules disagree with that interpretation, then that person is factually incorrect. I believe there's another passage, in more than one edition, which describes fighters as natural leaders who are capable of protecting their vulnerable teammates; but without mechanical support for that concept, it falls on its face. You can say that intelligence helps you fire a bow, but we know that's a lie, for exactly the same reason.

It doesn't matter who says that luck, a sixth sense, or magical protection accounts for any amount of HP. We know the formula for HP, and those factors simply aren't involved. We also know how luck, a sixth sense, and magical protections are actually reflected in terms of game mechanics (elsewhere in the book); and HP are not involved any way. Gygax's long-winded opinion is factually incorrect; and if that's what he was attempting for his rules to represent, then he failed spectacularly.

 

[glass]

In editions prior to 4E, you can say that every hit is (at the very least) a physical impact, because evidence of such an impact does not literally vanish overnight.

You can say that any hit it a physical impact in literally every edition. You can say that any hit is a phyical impact occasioning actual meaningful injury in exactly no editions (well, you can say it, but you will be talking bobbins).

The rules have never been entirely consistent with "luck, stamina, and will to fight", even in 4e. But they have always been notably more consistant with that than with meat points.

_
glass.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

It never catches on, because they implement it poorly. They assume you need to increase the complexity of the rules, in order to tell whether or not an attack actually hits; instead of just using the existing rules, and saying that a hit is a hit.

Because that would be a mistake. If a hit is a hit as you say, then hit points, death, dying, and recovery make no sense