Pathfinder 2E Looks like I will be running a PF2e game in a few weeks...suggestions?

[Retreater]

To you something is fishy here, there are bugs in the system. To others the systems features are working as intended. I had some reservations during the playtest and wanted to take a second shot. I like PF2, but still prefer PF1. If I ever ran PF2 id toss in a number of variant rules.

Yes. Like mentioned earlier, I do come from an old-school mentality. I don't dislike PF2 at all, so I hope I'm not giving that impression. It's just not as freeform as I'm accustomed to DMing, and that lack of freedom does impact my ability to improvise, giving a "scripted," videogamey feel to a lot of the game. I think that's just how PF2 is set up. Like you said, a feature, not a bug.
As was brought up in a previous thread, it's hard to convey a living, dangerous, realistic environment where due to the constraints of the system it's impossible to have monsters regroup, call for aid, ambush a party resting, or do anything other than stay in their designated encounter area, where they are "meant" to be found.

 

[payn]

Yes. Like mentioned earlier, I do come from an old-school mentality. I don't dislike PF2 at all, so I hope I'm not giving that impression. It's just not as freeform as I'm accustomed to DMing, and that lack of freedom does impact my ability to improvise, giving a "scripted," videogamey feel to a lot of the game. I think that's just how PF2 is set up. Like you said, a feature, not a bug.
As was brought up in a previous thread, it's hard to convey a living, dangerous, realistic environment where due to the constraints of the system it's impossible to have monsters regroup, call for aid, ambush a party resting, or do anything other than stay in their designated encounter area, where they are "meant" to be found.

I've heard that all those things are possible, and perhaps I just dont understand how to do them in PF2? I do know that combining two moderate encounters (regrouping) is likely to TPK the party so you must be careful. I just chalk it up to growing pains that every new edition has. 5E was easy, because it doesn't make any hard assumptions, not the case here with PF2 I'm finding.

 

[Retreater]

I've heard that all those things are possible, and perhaps I just dont understand how to do them in PF2? I do know that combining two moderate encounters (regrouping) is likely to TPK the party so you must be careful. I just chalk it up to growing pains that every new edition has. 5E was easy, because it doesn't make any hard assumptions, not the case here with PF2 I'm finding.

I think that the "combat as sport" is so clearly defined that any tweak to it can make a very deadly encounter. In my Age of Ashes campaign, I misread an attack description and didn't take a multiattack penalty a couple of times, and it resulted in a TPK. Again, in Age of Ashes, I had some monsters attack while the door trap to their room was going off (which is a very logical thing to do) - another TPK.
I have doubts if I will ever gain enough system mastery to write my own adventure or even run the game without second guessing myself. And this is saying something since I've been running games several times a week on average since the late 1980s.

 

[ronaldsf]

Kind of unrelated, but one thing I dislike about Paizo mega dungeons is that the levels are always compact and made to fit with their Flipmat line. It makes the encounters very close together to an almost absurd degree. Especially since in 2e it's often a bad idea for encounters to combine and for dungeon denizens to support each other.

 

[kenada]

I've heard that all those things are possible, and perhaps I just dont understand how to do them in PF2? I do know that combining two moderate encounters (regrouping) is likely to TPK the party so you must be careful. I just chalk it up to growing pains that every new edition has. 5E was easy, because it doesn't make any hard assumptions, not the case here with PF2 I'm finding.

You need to bring in old-school techniques like allowing the party to retreat. It’s not like OSR games are nice and easy even in the face of combining encounters. If you get into a tough fight, you will die in those games. However, you can retreat. People complain about disliking retreat because it’s not heroic, but setbacks are part of the hero’s journey. When the group is playing a story-driven game, it’s silly to let the game destroy itself just because things got out of control. If there’s a question of whether one can retreat, use the chase subsystem.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I'm really curious about how a dungeon can be heavily jacquayed with multiple entrances and routes between levels, but not have any exploration whatsoever.

If I'm not mistaken doesn't an NPC (Wrin Sivinxi) send you into the Vaults because she can see the strange glow atop the old lighthouse and is worried something has happened that might threaten the town? The book points to her write up in the back on like the first two pages and suggests you can start the adventure with her briefing them on their mission. Given that the delve is framed as an investigation, I'm not sure what more motivation to explore is necessary.

 

[payn]

You need to bring in old-school techniques like allowing the party to retreat. It’s not like OSR games are nice and easy even in the face of combining encounters. If you get into a tough fight, you will die in those games. However, you can retreat. People complain about disliking retreat because it’s not heroic, but setbacks are part of the hero’s journey. When the group is playing a story-driven game, it’s silly to let the game destroy itself just because things got out of control. If there’s a question of whether one can retreat, use the chase subsystem.

I think the issue is most things can run down a party. Escape is actually quite difficult. Folks have said things like, "well the monster wont pursue, or the monster wont chase you into enemy territory (which then why doesn't the new monster(s) mop up?). Of course, you can always start up a chase sub system to get away too." The former you cant always count on, and the latter isn't something that is intuitive to new users of the system.

 

[!DWolf]

In regards to retreating:
In pathfinder 2e, when playing with dynamic dungeons, success isn’t guaranteed. So the PCs should plan for failure (proper preparation prevents poor performance).

Come prepared for the dungeon. Hire hirelings and give them signal whistles and elixirs of life. Have the wizard memorize web or grease and lock (or buy scrolls or wands). Use the pitons and hammers that came with the starting kit and rope to seal off areas. Invest in pavise, potions of expeditious retreat or invisibility. Have an alchemist in the party. Take snarecrafting.

As you explore find good locations and prepare the ground. Set up hirelings to close and lock doors or rapidly restore your ho. Spike shut doors you are unsure off. Build traps and defenses.

Then when you retreat you do it right: Don’t run off into unknown territory, don’t wait until the fight is lost. Coordinate actions to retreat safely back to prepared ground - if the monsters follow they are walking into a kill box. If they bring their buddies it just saves you from having to go in and fight them on their prepared ground.

 

[kenada]

I think the issue is most things can run down a party. Escape is actually quite difficult. Folks have said things like, "well the monster wont pursue, or the monster wont chase you into enemy territory (which then why doesn't the new monster(s) mop up?). Of course, you can always start up a chase sub system to get away too." The former you cant always count on, and the latter isn't something that is intuitive to new users of the system.

I’m not sure new being intuitive to new users is particularly germane here. If someone wants to run in a particular style that’s not the one described by the game’s core books (but can be made to work with the system), then they’re not likely to be a new user, and they’re going to have to go to external resources either way.

I recommend allowing retreat because it is an easy release valve for the players. They can push, and the dungeon can react, and if things start looking really bad, they can back off and regroup. What I’m suggesting that the GM make retreat a viable option because it is in one’s interest as a GM that it be a viable option.

I suggested the chase subsystem because it’s something that could possibly be known to a PF2 group (since it’s included in the GMG). Personally, I think it’s too clunky for retreat procedures. I’d advise just allowing the PCs to retreat and talking through any costs that could have, or using the procedure from B/X, or whatever. In essence, the PCs say, “we want to retreat,” and you switch to an exploration activity where they end up somewhere safe (but the GM decides where).

Otherwise, you have the situation you and @Retreater described on page 2 where individual deaths are unlikely, but the risk of a TPK is higher. For AP play or in a story-driven campaign, TPKs are (usually) very undesirable. If GMs want to add a bit of dynamism to keep encounters interesting, then it’s in their interests to use techniques to help mitigate bad outcomes (like a TPK).

 

[Retreater]

If I'm not mistaken doesn't an NPC (Wrin Sivinxi) send you into the Vaults because she can see the strange glow atop the old lighthouse and is worried something has happened that might threaten the town? The book points to her write up in the back on like the first two pages and suggests you can start the adventure with her briefing them on their mission. Given that the delve is framed as an investigation, I'm not sure what more motivation to explore is necessary.

From the start of the adventure: "The Abomination Vaults Adventure Path focuses primarily on the sprawling dungeon complex, and this adventure assumes play begins as the heroes approach the aboveground ruins for the first time. Their mutual friend, Wrin Sivinxi, has already briefed them about her sighting of a strange glow atop the ruin’s towering lighthouse." The second paragraph provides a couple of sentences about how to set up the adventure, but tells GMs "the fun doesn’t truly begin until the heroes head up the Gaunt Trail to the foreboding ruins in Fogfen!" So it actively encourages GMs to skip the roleplaying and get into the dungeon.
The investigation motivation is tenuous at best. I did put it in as a background to get them at the doorstep of the dungeon, handled in the way the adventure suggests. Figuring out why a faint light is appearing at the top of a haunted lighthouse is a very loose motivation to undertake a quest that lasts for around 10 levels of an adventuring career.

I'm really curious about how a dungeon can be heavily jacquayed with multiple entrances and routes between levels, but not have any exploration whatsoever.

There's exploration only in terms of what you would do in any dungeon, i.e. looking for traps, secret doors, hidden treasure, etc. It does not make use of the specific Pathfinder 2e exploration activities, which is what I was addressing. It's not like an expansive, open wilderness (like the hexcrawl in book 2 of Age of Ashes). It's a very compact dungeon, designed to be laid out on a series of a few Pathfinder Flip Mats. I'm not criticizing this design, but the dungeon is presented as a flowchart of encounters with a few short, narrow hallways and staircases linking them.
So far as I have seen (through 2 books) they don't have long sections of caverns to link areas where characters can traverse miles of subterranean passageways (which is something I have in my OSR dungeon, Maelgrym, or that has been in previous adventures such as the first book of Age of Ashes). Those are areas where exploration activities could really shine, and it would make it difficult to walk 15 minutes back to town.