Pathfinder 2E Another Deadly Session, and It's Getting Old

[CapnZapp]

my experience is that they tend to have at least 30 feet distance meaning they have to spend two actions to get close(or pcs win and moves two actions closer, hits enemy and then enemy is free to use all three actions however they want )

Mine too. I don't think the difference between 10 and 30 feet is distinctive. The real difference is between 50 foot or less (so a monster can deliver at least one melee attack right away) and more than 75 foot (so heroes can fire a full volley of ranged fire unimpeded).

Obviously these measurements are made assuming the default Speed of 25. At higher levels these distances can easily be doubled if not tripled.

The take away I'm intending is: in Pathfinder 2, balance is paramount. Giving the heroes even a single round of "extra" fire, even ranged fire (which generally is weaker than melee strikes), completely upends that balance, making encounters far easier than intended.

And just as a disclaimer: no, I'm not badwrongfunning anyone reading this. In your home game you can easily start encounters at 300 ft distance (with good visibility) for all I care. Point here is that if you do, you need to serve up maybe three times as many monsters for the encounter to still count as Severe, given that the heroes will be able to kill off two thirds of them before the remaining third comes within striking distance.

 

[MaskedGuy]

I feel like I'm missing the context of the rant?

Well either way, by the rules I think moderate threat difficulty is right.

"Moderate-threat encounters are a serious challenge to the characters, though unlikely to overpower them completely. Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting. "

Aka "As long your players pay attention and don't turn their brains off, they will win.". You can have your character knocked out in moderate threat encounter, but you are extremely unlikely to actually die past level 1.

My opinion on medicine is that its nice alternative way of healing characters to full outside of combat that doesn't require them to buy wand and touching each other over and over like it was a some sort of super market product, but inside combat its just emmergency heal option when you don't have cleric available. I don't believe medicine should be strong enough to justify party completely lacking combat healer, one of things I actually like about 2e is that enemies deal enough damage to combat healing being actually useful instead of 1e "combat healing is waste of turn that could be used to kill creature that causes damage"

And regarding long distance kills: Well yeah, of course if you start your party in 120 feet sniping range of melee creature with 25 feet movement, that creature is going to die before it gets close to you. You have enough distance that you can super easily kite it to death. Same applies in 1e as well as 5e and most ofther systems. That is more of common sense than system specific quirk

 

[kenada]

But in a group of four or five heroes some are bound to roll badly, and if even one party member doesn't even have Stealth...

I wonder how well the infiltration subsystem would work in a dungeon for group Stealth. You’d define the goal as whatever you’re trying to accomplish with Stealth in that dungeon (e.g., get into position to ambush the evil high priest) and then use the existing encounters as obstacles in the challenge. It’s a bit more heavyweight compared to a proper piggybacking mechanic, and you’d have to improvise the challenge, but it seems like it ought to work.

 

[kenada]

I feel like I'm missing the context of the rant?

A few of us have very different styles of play, and it’s resulted in some exchanges where we talk past each other. For a kick-in-the-door style, the assumption is a group the group is not doing things to change the encounter because they’re experiencing them as written. For other styles, PCs may be able to eek out an advantage or even bypass the encounter. I pretty sure @CapnZapp is arguing from the perspective of the former (but correct me if I’m wrong).

My opinion on medicine is that its nice alternative way of healing characters to full outside of combat that doesn't require them to buy wand and touching each other over and over like it was a some sort of super market product, but inside combat its just emmergency heal option when you don't have cleric available. I don't believe medicine should be strong enough to justify party completely lacking combat healer, one of things I actually like about 2e is that enemies deal enough damage to combat healing being actually useful instead of 1e "combat healing is waste of turn that could be used to kill creature that causes damage"

The issue being raised with Medicine is whether the party should be able to heal back up to full and what the cost of that should be. It’s another style thing.

I run an old-school style, which gives resting an opportunity cost. Consequently, my PCs don’t just spend all of their time doing Treat Wounds. They’ll do it once and then supplement it with consumables or spells, but sometimes they just don’t heal themselves all the way back up to full. The opportunity cost here comes from the dungeon’s being run dynamically. Even if a monster doesn’t jump them while they rest, they could still ‘lose progress’ elsewhere because of how I use wandering monsters.

Other styles (e.g., kick-in-the-door) make other assumptions, such as whether the party needs to be at full hit points to experience each encounter as intended. If so, the argument goes Treat Wounds isn’t interesting because it’s mandatory, and having to run it after every combat is pointless tedium. Also, being able to rest for arbitrary amounts of time means there’s effectively no time pressure in a dungeon.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Honestly, I sometimes think there's a little too much focus from too many people on how APs set things up, especially the first couple where even the designers likely didn't have their heads around the realities of 2e.

I can kind of see the argument about Medicine being just a punctuation in most cases, but if that's the price of not forcing a spellcaster to be a healbot even outside of combat, I'm kind of okay with it.

Regarding surprise--well, this is a truism the faster pace-of-resolution a system has, and PF2e has a significantly shorter pace-of-resolution than most modern D20 variants. As such, true surprise (i.e. getting both high initiative and a full round of preemptive shots) would have much more dramatic an impact than it would with, say, 3e D&D.

 

[Retreater]

Honestly, I sometimes think there's a little too much focus from too many people on how APs set things up, especially the first couple where even the designers likely didn't have their heads around the realities of 2e.

When it's literally the only example of play for a new system of a game, it should be done right, or it should be corrected with errata. Paizo has had the response of "We designed the game we wanted. We don't care if you don't get it. We're not going to help." The APs should teach players how to play and GMs how to GM, especially when it's the first one out of the gate. Yet, they seem to think we're all masters of running a system that hadn't even been out a month when the AP was released.

How in the heck are we supposed to know how to adjust encounters? How are we to know how often to let characters use Treat Wounds - and are they expected to be at 100% strength every combat? How are we supposed to know you absolutely can never put encounters together? How are we supposed to know that if you don't split your monsters' turns (like you did in every other edition of the game), that they gang up and wipe out parties?

I mean, I'm still going to run PF2 because my players want to finish the campaign, but my lord this system has killed modern gaming for me - when even 4E didn't do that. I am jumping on to the OSR scene in all my future games. PF2 is making my eyeballs bleed. There is so much that it can't do. It is so overdesigned that if a GM tries to touch anything it collapses like a house of cards.

 

[Thomas Shey]

When it's literally the only example of play for a new system of a game, it should be done right, or it should be corrected with errata.

While possibly true, its not what pretty much anybody does, so I'm not going to hold Paizo to a higher standard here.

Paizo has had the response of "We designed the game we wanted. We don't care if you don't get it. We're not going to help." The APs should teach players how to play and GMs how to GM, especially when it's the first one out of the gate. Yet, they seem to think we're all masters of running a system that hadn't even been out a month when the AP was released.

See, thing is, I don't think the APs are needed for that. If you read the guidelines in the GM's book, it provides the thought behind the design in the place it should be, since not everyone is going to buy an AP.

How in the heck are we supposed to know how to adjust encounters? How are we to know how often to let characters use Treat Wounds - and are they expected to be at 100% strength every combat? How are we supposed to know you absolutely can never put encounters together? How are we supposed to know that if you don't split your monsters' turns (like you did in every other edition of the game), that they gang up and wipe out parties?

Part of that is absolutely discussed in the GM's book. As to the latter, going into a new edition of a game and expecting what works in prior editions to work there is always a categorical error. It fails far more often than it works except in games where new editions might as well be called revised printings.

I mean, I'm still going to run PF2 because my players want to finish the campaign, but my lord this system has killed modern gaming for me - when even 4E didn't do that. I am jumping on to the OSR scene in all my future games. PF2 is making my eyeballs bleed. There is so much that it can't do. It is so overdesigned that if a GM tries to touch anything it collapses like a house of cards.

Hyperbole much?

 

[FrozenNorth]

Hyperbole much?

I am shocked, SHOCKED, to find hyperbole going on in an internet forum!

 

[Retreater]

See, thing is, I don't think the APs are needed for that. If you read the guidelines in the GM's book, it provides the thought behind the design in the place it should be, since not everyone is going to buy an AP.

Part of that is absolutely discussed in the GM's book. As to the latter, going into a new edition of a game and expecting what works in prior editions to work there is always a categorical error. It fails far more often than it works except in games where new editions might as well be called revised printings.

I don't have the GMG. It also wasn't available until 7+ months after the start of the Adventure Path. I guess I could buy it and try to figure out things like basic encounter design, expectations of play, etc. But shouldn't all of that really be in the Core Rulebook? Moreover, shouldn't the premiere Adventure Path be designed following those guidelines, instead of defaulting to my players' characters getting routinely stomped, leading to some of the greatest frustration we've had in gaming?

When you publish a system called X #2, I think it's fair for GMs to surmise that the game operates with the same expectations of play, unless otherwise noted. Paizo did a bad job of telling us how to run the game. If this is all in the GMG, then that should have been available Day 1. I don't trust that it is in there, so I am hesitant to set aside time, money, and shelf space for it.

Hyperbole much?

Nah. I'm quite serious. I've wrapped up one of my existing 5e campaigns and that group is going to Swords and Wizardry next week. As soon as Dragonheist is finished in a couple of weeks, we are going to OSE.

I've seen what PF2 can't do. It can't handle multiple combats coming together. It can't handle depletion of resources. It can't handle random encounters (because resources aren't depleted). It can't handle monsters 2 levels lower or 2 levels higher. It can't handle a group that doesn't play 100% tactically perfect. It can't handle monsters on the same initiative. It can't handle creative uses of skills (because you're getting into the territory of feats). It can't handle if you forget Hero Points. It can't handle if you don't use crafting, treat wounds, etc. - basically every party has to have access to the same abilities, and any deviation from what a party is will be met with failure.

So yeah, I'm so frustrated and burned out because of PF2 that I am done with 3.x/PF/4/5 for the foreseeable future.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't have the GMG. It also wasn't available until 7+ months after the start of the Adventure Path. I guess I could buy it and try to figure out things like basic encounter design, expectations of play, etc. But shouldn't all of that really be in the Core Rulebook? Moreover, shouldn't the premiere Adventure Path be designed following those guidelines, instead of defaulting to my players' characters getting routinely stomped, leading to some of the greatest frustration we've had in gaming?

The early Adventure Paths were absolutely problematic in some areas. I'm just noting this is a chronic problem with new systems and new editions of older systems.

A lot of the misdesign is not the consequence of the lack of the GMG though (though its a fair complaint that it wasn't available for a while); it was because of designing things with the assumption that things from the prior system or 3e D&D applied. I suggest a brand new person to the game would not have made those assumptions (and that some of them were signs of design problems that walked into PF1e from D&D3e rather than being intentional design issues of the latter which were deliberately brought over from the former). As an example, the basic encounter structure is explained in the core book. Most problems that come up with it are because people don't believe them (including sometimes some of the people doing work on APs).

When you publish a system called X #2, I think it's fair for GMs to surmise that the game operates with the same expectations of play, unless otherwise noted. Paizo did a bad job of telling us how to run the game. If this is all in the GMG, then that should have been available Day 1. I don't trust that it is in there, so I am hesitant to set aside time, money, and shelf space for it.

I don't. That has been untrue with far more games than not, and its particularly the case with early edition changeovers (as time goes on, its not uncommon for editions to noodle at the margins, but even then its risky--ask anyone playing Shadowrun 4e if their Shadowrun 3e assumptions were helpful).

Nah. I'm quite serious. I've wrapped up one of my existing 5e campaigns and that group is going to Swords and Wizardry next week. As soon as Dragonheist is finished in a couple of weeks, we are going to OSE.

I've seen what PF2 can't do. It can't handle multiple combats coming together. It can't handle depletion of resources. It can't handle random encounters (because resources aren't depleted). It can't handle monsters 2 levels lower or 2 levels higher. It can't handle a group that doesn't play 100% tactically perfect. It can't handle monsters on the same initiative. It can't handle creative uses of skills (because you're getting into the territory of feats). It can't handle if you forget Hero Points. It can't handle if you don't use crafting, treat wounds, etc. - basically every party has to have access to the same abilities, and any deviation from what a party is will be met with failure.

So yeah, I'm so frustrated and burned out because of PF2 that I am done with 3.x/PF/4/5 for the foreseeable future.

I disagree that it can't handle all of those, and at least one of them (the lower or higher monsters) I'm not sure why this is a problem. It absolutely can handle people who aren't playing perfect (it can't handle people who aren't even trying, but those are not the same thing).

So yeah, I think I'm sticking to "hyperbole", because much of this is simply not true.