Isn't that just a general personal preference gripe with regards to how PF2 handles information? Getting information is gated behind a rather elaborate process through Recall Knowledge, whereas some folks prefer to resolve it much quicker and without too much difficulty.
In the interests of being excessively pedantic... I know, I know... wouldn’t that be a Discover Knowledge check?
It just seems weird to me that in PF2 you can Recall Knowledge you never had in the first place, like on a named opponent you never met before (or heard of), or with respect to a trap you have never faced.
I was responding to your problems to this specific example. If you don’t have problems with the specific example then why did you post your problems with the specific example?
I'm not familiar with this specific adventure, but already your first assumption, that it is even possible to lure away the level 9 monster, much less doing so without alerting the guards, is highly irregular.
Not to mention the fact that you never have much more than a 50% chance of accomplishing anything against a monster of your own level. Using spells or maybe the Command an Animal action against a level 9 monster will likely have a DC of 26 or thereabouts. Unless the heroes are severely overleveled (which practically never happens in Paizo's official APs) there is a significant risk of failing an individual DC 26 check, which should result in combat against a monster described as "an enormous predator capable of catching and eating dinosaurs".
Of course I see you struggling! That’s is why I wrote multiple massive posts identifying the problem you are having and offering advice. That’s why I list tons of examples that take ages to type out. Have you not read my posts? Let me recap: I wrote a massive post explaining why gms are struggling. I offered advice that would reduce the struggle. I was asked how to do a stealth mission. I offered advice on how to do that (and clarified when I was misunderstood) and even provided a lengthy example of how a sentry removal mission works.
I am telling you there's a difference between Pathfinder 2 and most other editions of D&D.
In most other D&D, having the monsters of room #2 come charging to the rescue of the monsters in room #1 makes for a more interesting and challenging fight.
In PF2, it might turn a "moderate" encounter into an "extreme" one.
Scroll up a bit (or page back a bit), I wrote a massive post explaining just that. I even pointed the last point out explicitly in another post. I understand this. It is in fact my entire point. Let me reiterate: pf2 is a different game than dnd 5e. People don’t realize that and try to run it using the same playstyle which leads to exactly the problems you are complaining about.
Lets us an analogy. Suppose there is a group of shadowrun players (as an example, it could be any appropriate system - it’s an analogy). These players are approaching every run as a bust into the lobby matrix-style and have a massive firefight. As a result most die in every run and so the players go online and ask for advice. A poster points out that maybe they should consider playing the game as the heist/stealth game it was intended to be and it would run a little better. Another poster responds that it is clearly a straight combat game and the poster who offered advice is doing it wrong - then they complain that the rules are broken and it’s a bad game.
Why should we listen to that second poster who insists that it is a straight combat game? The game is not working for them - they even state it outright. If what they are doing is not working, why should the group copy them and not look at groups that it is working for?
I consider more relaxed rpgs (including 5E!) much better suited to alternative play styles like yours, where the group is open to defeating encounters in many more ways than merely killing them.
You are assuming that my style is alternative while yours is the intended. Why should we assume that? Let’s post some quotes (from the first part of hellknight hill):
XP Award: If the PCs improve the goblin dogs’ attitude by a step or successfully use the Command an Animal activity on one of them, award them XP as if they had defeated all three of the dogs in combat.
At this point, the PCs can attempt a DC 16 Intimidation check to Coerce Calmont to release his hostage—on a success, he seems to wilt, then releases Helba and surrenders to the PCs, but on a critical failure he attacks as detailed in area A22.
If the PCs undo the necromantic ward, all remaining undead in this wing are destroyed, their spirits released back to the Boneyard. In this case, award the PCs 120 XP, plus the full XP for each undead destroyed this way.
Hopefully, it is very clear that my playstyle is well supported by the modules. Thats not all btw - I can keep going.
And your argument is bizarre: you are arguing that because a game punishes a specific style that the system is therefore incentivize running in that style. That is backwards. PF2 players (and players of other asymmetrical-combat style systems), because of the deadliness of combat, are highly motivated to avoid/trivialize encounters.
I'm posting argument after argument where scouting and stealth and skill use is shot down and shot down again, simply by PF2 making failure an inevitability.
You are posting that, due to how you play, you find stealth and skill use is ineffective. I am arguing that a different way of playing (one fully supported by the rules and modules - see the above quotes where the module literally rewards people for playing this way) would not make them ineffective. To support this I refer you to the example I posted above (which you even agreed with!).
My argument is that the extremely tied down rules of PF2 actively make it harder and work against you. My argument is that PF2 pretty much forces you to play in a style for which other rules subsystems are ill prepared.
You are not forced to play like you are and neither is anyone else. The game doesn’t expect it and neither do the modules - see the above quotes where rewards are literally handed out for playing it with a different style.
That's the basis of my entire complaint. (Just to take a single example, how the rules seem to expect players to rest for no more than 10 to 30 minutes, except the overall difficulty makes players extremely reluctant to resume adventuring before being fully healed up, which can easily take 60 minutes or more)
You are arguing that because it takes a long time to heal, and you find it annoying/contradictory to the module/narrative, that people shouldn’t make a playstyle change (not a mechanics change) where combat is easier (as you yourself pointed out) and the players take less damage and thus healing times are shorter? There is a serious error in that logic.
Let’s look at a scenario to illustrate this: suppose the party is dealing with a severe encounter consisting of several goblin-dogs. We will examine what can happen from two different play-styles:
Style 1 (in which the non-combat mechanics are perceived to not work and the only option is combat): the party fights the dogs. They are severely injured and have to take time to recover.
Style 2: the party offers food to the dogs and talks them into being friendly. They then have to do no healing. And they get goblin dogs to help them tackle the dungeon!
Note that by changing the playstyle the problems with the healing rules are negated! You might argue that the odds are too low (and I would disagree with you), but even if you only succeed on average half the time (to use your numbers for convenience) you will still negate the combat half the time and thus have to spend only half the time healing.
Edit: towards the end there I was mixing different types of ‘you’ and rereading it made it seem like I was trying to get CapnZapp to adjust their playstyle. That was not what I intended, I wanted to illustrate that the problem they had with the rules was do to their instance on a very strict dnd 5e style play in a system that was not built for it, and I edited it to hopefully make that more clear.
Isn't that just a general personal preference gripe with regards to how PF2 handles information? Getting information is gated behind a rather elaborate process through Recall Knowledge, whereas some folks prefer to resolve it much quicker and without too much difficulty.
To me it looks like the rules already provide a way to give out information on how to disable a hazard, which is Recall Knowledge. Now, I get that PF2 Recall Knowledge can be convoluted (but then again, PF2 can be convoluted in general), and you can house rule that by making the checks not require actions and grant much more information per check, or even simply grant automatic knowledge based on proficiency rank for example.
I am highlighting rules elements that can be perceived as complex, cluttery, difficult to use or all three. If a game is best run with house rules that bypass its elements, that definitely needs to be made clear. Obviously there can exist a play group that is entirely fine with the rules as written, but that does not mean we can't put a spotlight on a game when it gates the flow of information "behind a rather elaborate process".
Moreover, I feel it is entirely reasonable to ask the question "but how is this meant to be used?"
The answer "you're supposed to make a Recall Knowledge check" isn't a satisfactory answer. It's just the start, not the end. Suggesting otherwise would be to imply that "make a Recall Knowledge check" is fine, and not without problems of its own.
First off, are we talking about three checks here?
1) make a Perception to spot the trap
2) make a RK check to understand "you can use Religion to disable it"
3) make a Religion check to actually disable it
Statistically this makes no sense. Yes, I am asserting that this alleged sequence is objectively broken. Why? Because checks almost never have much more than a 50% chance of success in PF2! The fact that three checks must succeeds tells us that there is only a 12.5% chance of actually disabling this trap, even without knowing the specifics (individual trap DC, individual skill bonuses, other circumstances). You could argue the Perception check could be assumed to have a much greater probability of success if we assume every party member does a search before a feature is interacted with, but a) the chance would still remain at or below 25% and b) I don't actually agree this assumption is very reasonable.
Then, the issue of what to say and how to describe it. If there is no way to describe what the character sees and experiences the process will come across as artificial and "gamey".
This is usually not a problem with D&D traps in general. "You see a tripwire". "Okay, so I need to cut it without releasing tension". "You would use Thievery to accomplish that". Note that the conversion from in-game knowledge/conclusions is done after the group understands what needs to be done (roughly). How do the PF2 designers envision this conversation going for a trap described as "An object haunted by the echoes of a vicious mind attempts to kill someone who comes near"? They give us no clue.
I am fully aware that sometimes the "inner workings" of a fantasy element can be abstract and that any "explanation" can be just "technobabble" (but without the "techno" I guess). But then some technobabble terms needs to be given out so to help roleplaying the encounter: "You see a thingamagog." "Okay so I need to reflux its capacitors without causing overburn." "You would do that by making a Engineering check".
I don’t like having everyone automatically roll every time they come to a door or chest or whatever, especially when those checks are usually secret (so I end being the one to roll them). It makes me feel like I’m playing the game for the PCs. That’s also something I don’t like, hence the “either”. I’d rather put in the work to make hazards engaging or otherwise just drop them.
Absolutely. Just pointing out that "you need to foreshadow" is not necessarily true. The analysis is incomplete IMHO if you conclude more foreshadowing is necessary, since just assuming adventurers do adventurery stuff without prompting from the players is a fine alternative, whereby the GM is relieved of the need to make sure important dungeon features stand out from the unimportant ones.
I was responding to your problems to this specific example. If you don’t have problems with the specific example then why did you post your problems with the specific example?
I was unaware this specific example had good GMing advice.
You have shown that it does offer support for alternative GMing styles. That's good. But you also bring it up as support for the notion "just play the game as I do and PF2 works fine".
Can we please move on to all the other encounters presented without any such advice, and stop pretending that specific example is representative for the game?
I made a decision when PF went to 2E to simply stand pat with my vast trove of 1E material, and this thread reinforces that was the right decision for me.
Absolutely. Just pointing out that "you need to foreshadow" is not necessarily true. The analysis is incomplete IMHO if you conclude more foreshadowing is necessary, since just assuming adventurers do adventurery stuff without prompting from the players is a fine alternative, whereby the GM is relieved of the need to make sure important dungeon features stand out from the unimportant ones.
Yes, fine. Just doing everything automatically is an option. I think it’s an incredibly boring option, but it is technically an option.
I guess I’m having trouble understanding why one would want to bother having hazards in a way that doesn’t present any interesting gameplay, and doing something to make them interesting is apparently something the GM should need relief from doing. I can understand wanting to montage exploration, treating it as scene dressing (as I expect most people do), but what’s the point of having a scene where the PCs don’t make meaningful choices?
I am not sure how much more clearly I can say this: this is not what I’m trying to do. I am trying to point out to you that you (inadvertently) made a flawed assumption about how the game is intended to be run. Your mechanical difficulties arise from that assumption.
I will put another analogy here that you will ignore: consider an Eclipse Phase 1e player who assumes that it is to be played in a bust down the door no tactics combat style... the game will not work well mechanically for them. They will burst into the first room and some punk with a shredder will turn them into a fine mist.
Note: I am not saying that the games can’t be modified to run in a different styles - they can and I fully support doing so. Its just some mechanical alterations may be necessary to facilitate that. What I am saying is that examining your underlying assumptions of how a game is to be played might reveal why you have mechanical difficulty while others do not.
That's good. But you also bring it up as support for the notion "just play the game as I do and PF2 works fine".
Peoples mechanical difficulties are arising from style mismatches: I am trying to point that out. Your healing example is a perfect example of that. You assume that, because it is not generally necessary to avoid/trivialize fights in DND 5e (because they are so easy), then it is also not necessary to attempt to avoid/trivialize fights in systems where fights are much harder (like pf2). That is an incorrect assumption that causes, when you barge into fight after fight, you to get wrecked which causes your issues with the healing system.
You also complain that avoiding/trivializing fights in pf2 is difficult because of the detailed mechanics (where dnd 5e had much looser mechanics). But you are missing that PF2 is expecting players to try to avoiding/trivialize fights as a major part of gameplay (see all those quotes from my previous post) and so provides more mechanical support, more limitations, and more customization in this area.
Can we please move on to all the other encounters presented without any such advice, and stop pretending that specific example is representative for the game?
I provided numerous quotes from other sections of the game offering similar advice. You ignored them. It is quite obvious that I am wasting time responding to you when you will not read my posts or engage my central point. So I will no longer do so and focus on more constructive activities.
Peoples mechanical difficulties are arising from style mismatches: I am trying to point that out. Your healing example is a perfect example of that. You assume that, because it is not generally necessary to avoid/trivialize fights in DND 5e (because they are so easy), then it is also not necessary to attempt to avoid/trivialize fights in systems where fights are much harder (like pf2). constructive activities.
Just wanted to point out that Capnzapp has repeatedly told you it not 5e to PF2e issue, that it is his experience with all of D&D vs PF2e issue. You keep ignoring that, but I think it is relevant. He in fact said: "I am telling you there's a difference between Pathfinder 2 and most other editions of D&D."
In general I find your argument good with specific examples (some of which CZ has ignored), but your apparent bias against 5e hurts your argument a bit.
I would also point out the evidence in the core books you have provided is pretty scant and that would be an issue for me too, if I hadn't read your post Does the CRB or GMG have any advice on how to run PF2e were you want to be able to have various encounter mixing? Do you just make them all weak encounters?
Just wanted to point out that Capnzapp has repeatedly told you it not 5e to PF2e issue, that it is his experience with all of D&D vs PF2e issue. You keep ignoring that, but I think it is relevant. He in fact said: "I am telling you there's a difference between Pathfinder 2 and most other editions of D&D."
In general I find your argument good with specific examples (some of which CZ has ignored), but your apparent bias against 5e hurts your argument a bit.
Oh, I was using 5e as stand-in for the playstyle of all later versions of DND (3.5 onward, including first edition pathfinder) since it is the most familiar nowadays. Sorry, I didn’t make that clear. Just for the record: DND 5e, and 4e, for that matter, are fine games in their own right, they just aren’t for me.
I would also point out the evidence in the core books you have provided is pretty scant and that would be an issue for me too, if I hadn't read your post Does the CRB or GMG have any advice on how to run PF2e were you want to be able to have various encounter mixing? Do you just make them all weak encounters?
It’s discussed on page 49 of the GMG (the advice is basically foreshadow the extreme danger and let the players retreat). There are also sections in the pf2 modules that I have read (hellknight hill and cult of cinders) that illustrate how to do it. The example in the first module uses multiple weak encounters that combine into a severe encounter if you let them while the ones (there are two) in Cult of Cinders will quickly become unwinnable.
Does the CRB or GMG have any advice on how to run PF2e were you want to be able to have various encounter mixing? Do you just make them all weak encounters?
