Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?

[FrozenNorth]

Some make broad statements that "wrong play" within PF2 are unidirectionally punished - in that error only escalates deadliness (as posted upthread) upwards. In reality, we need to acknowledge that "wrong play" is bidirectional and its just as likely a new GM or player "mistake" will lead equally to a less deadly outcome as it does to a TPK. stating otherwise, paints a false picture. there is so much focus on how non-optimal play or mistake free play can only lead to one logical conclusion, which I don't believe is necessarily an absolute.

People complain about gameplay issues that impact their enjoyment. Issues that lead to character death and TPK impact both player and DM enjoyment more than issues that don’t.

Criticizing posters for not not bringing up that errors are bidirectional is simply complaining about other people’s criticism without engaging in the substance of their criticism.

 

[Retreater]

That's as it is, but frankly, I don't see any connection with game having rigorous mechanics and the thrill of discovery. They're utterly disconnected to me. All lighter rules systems do for me is tie up more of my processing overhead (as a GM) in deciding what's reasonable and how it should be resolved mechanically rather than in thinking about what NPCs are doing and keeping the world going, and make me engage with more back and forth with the GM on a meta level (as a player) rather than just playing my character.

So, again, this is a stark split in how people utilize the tools in play and what does and doesn't work for them. I don't see it as being particularly bridgeable.

And that's my wheel-house about what I love about the game, the back-and-forth about how players and DMs build a world together (including how the mechanics work). I understand that this is a difference in style, and I'm passing no value judgement.

The thrill of discovery comes from the plot, not the rules.

The rules often dictate the plot. Want to have the stench of a sewer be over-powering to the senses of a character, better check to see if someone has a feat to say that they treat saves against smells as one step better. Want to have the party go against an evil illusionist, better keep in mind that illusion saves are easier to make than other saves. Want to have the party jump across crumbling sections of a wall, better know the difference between the Leap action and the High Jump action.
Rules can definitely get in my way of depicting epic scenes. Intimate knowledge of a textbook-sized rules compendium full of special cases and exception-based design take up more headspace for me. For me, I'd rather make a reasonable judgement on a case-by-case basis - and if someone says "wait, didn't this happen last session and Dave's character got to make the same check with a DC 15" - then by all means, I'll change that to a DC 15 if they remember it. In my opinion, it takes so much more time out of the game and breaks immersion much more to stop and look up that rule for 30 seconds (or more in most cases).

I'll note, however, that the first can lead to massive anticlimax, and if you don't think that can harm a game, I can't follow you there.

If they kill a villain too easily, I find it almost universal that most players get suspicious instantly. "Was he the real villain? Was he a lackey? Did we kill an illusionary duplicate? Did he escape and trick us?"
The anti-climax becomes a stepping stone to a greater climax, setting up a more amazing story down the road.
But the death of a beloved character during a rote encounter? A TPK midway through the dungeon? That's infinitely worse than an anti-climax. In my experience, more campaigns have ended due to character death than any other factor.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I'll note, however, that the first can lead to massive anticlimax, and if you don't think that can harm a game, I can't follow you there.

“Massive anticlimax” suggests some sort of boss fight. Let’s take that as a basis. Suppose that after 3-4 sessions, the party gets to the boss, and due to DM error or miscalculation, the boss goes down like a chump after 2 rounds having only done scratch damage to the party.

As a DM, this isn’t that big a deal. Figure out what went wrong. Compensate. Next fight will be harder. Like I said, I have infinite villains.

The counterpoint, where the party had several character deaths or a TPK after 3-4 sessions, is definitely harder to deal with. Revolving door heroes works for some genres, but strains verisimilitude in other. Players may be OK with character death, but less OK with their character dying a pointless death or due to another player (or to DM) error.

 

[Justice and Rule]

People complain about gameplay issues that impact their enjoyment. Issues that lead to character death and TPK impact both player and DM enjoyment more than issues that don’t.

Criticizing posters for not not bringing up that errors are bidirectional is simply complaining about other people’s criticism without engaging in the substance of their criticism.

I think the point is that other games brought up (5E) still have that problem, particularly at early levels, but it seems to not be a problem/get brought up by those making similar critiques here.

To me, listening to the TPK problem is weird because I haven't had any in PF2 and I rarely had them in 5E.

The rules often dictate the plot. Want to have the stench of a sewer be over-powering to the senses of a character, better check to see if someone has a feat to say that they treat saves against smells as one step better. Want to have the party go against an evil illusionist, better keep in mind that illusion saves are easier to make than other saves. Want to have the party jump across crumbling sections of a wall, better know the difference between the Leap action and the High Jump action.
Rules can definitely get in my way of depicting epic scenes. Intimate knowledge of a textbook-sized rules compendium full of special cases and exception-based design take up more headspace for me. For me, I'd rather make a reasonable judgement on a case-by-case basis - and if someone says "wait, didn't this happen last session and Dave's character got to make the same check with a DC 15" - then by all means, I'll change that to a DC 15 if they remember it. In my opinion, it takes so much more time out of the game and breaks immersion much more to stop and look up that rule for 30 seconds (or more in most cases).

Dude, just roll with it. Like, you seem to be perfectly capable of rolling with it when your big bad dies too quickly because the rules don't accurately gauge difficulty (Which is a much bigger problem, given that it can completely throw off your campaign if you are trying to actually finish it), but can't just allow a meaningless action to continue to be meaningless? Like, I know the Leap/High Jump stuff, but unless it matters, I don't bother with it because I don't need to.

I feel like this is a common mental block: The idea that there is a rule out there, you must make sure you know you are following it. Your problem with Leap/High Jump was being too concerned with knowing that there were rules with jumping that you messed yourself up in the process. You should have just allowed it unless it would cause an interesting complication, or if the player had a power/skill based around it. I mean, maybe it's my experience with GURPS, but it feels like sweating the details too much causes you to make mistakes you otherwise wouldn't make.

“Massive anticlimax” suggests some sort of boss fight. Let’s take that as a basis. Suppose that after 3-4 sessions, the party gets to the boss, and due to DM error or miscalculation, the boss goes down like a chump after 2 rounds having only done scratch damage to the party.

As a DM, this isn’t that big a deal. Figure out what went wrong. Compensate. Next fight will be harder. Like I said, I have infinite villains.

The counterpoint, where the party had several character deaths or a TPK after 3-4 sessions, is definitely harder to deal with. Revolving door heroes works for some genres, but strains verisimilitude in other. Players may be OK with character death, but less OK with their character dying a pointless death or due to another player (or to DM) error.

Again, this is the only board where I hear about mass TPKs. I go to multiple boards on the topic and I feel like this is the only place where people talk about getting their entire party killed multiple times. While your experience is your own, it doesn't seem to match everything else I've heard about it.

 

[Retreater]

Again, this is the only board where I hear about mass TPKs. I go to multiple boards on the topic and I feel like this is the only place where people talk about getting their entire party killed multiple times. While your experience is your own, it doesn't seem to match everything else I've heard about it.

This could be that I've talked so much about my GMing experience on here, and I've probably had more TPKs in PF2 (and other systems for that matter) than five other random DMs combined.
I know that the guy from Taking20 (who made the "I'm Quitting Pathfinder" video several months ago) had a very public response to his group's TPK - something he claimed had never happened to him running any other system.
I can see why TPKs are easy to have in PF2. It's 1000% due to the critical success/failure +10/-10 math. Criticals are more common in PF2 than in any edition of d20 system I've ever played, and they're frequently more devastating than in any other edition. If you are going against enemies higher level than your character, this problem is compounded with higher DCs that you're more likely to fail and higher bonuses that they're more likely to critically succeed with their hits.
It's like taking the exploding dice mechanics from Savage Worlds and putting it into a d20 game. But instead of running a pulpy, fast-paced action game, you're playing a game that assumes you are playing a 1-20 level Adventure Path with deeply customized characters that your players have likely grown attached to.
It's an odd design choice that doesn't seem to support the goals of their fiction or business plan, but Paizo did it for their reasons.

 

[payn]

Speaking personally what really sold me on PF2 was how it handles stuff outside of combat - that it has stuff to say about exploration, rules for social stuff. Stuff that draws me into world like Anathema, Rituals, etc. That it shapes the fiction. It's a big part of why my Soulsborne inspired game really worked for us. Things were more emergent.

When I ran 5e it was so damn exhausting because I felt like I had to do everything, be responsible for everything.

If I am looking for a lighter experience I tend to run games that still have an impact, but function the same way inside and outside of combat. Stuff like Dune 2d20 or Blades in the Dark. I personally would rather ditch the combat system than have a game that has zero impact outside of combat.

I get what you are saying here. 5E has their flaws bonds thing thats like three sentences and its supposed to offer insight into character development. In my experience it only matters if the player wants it to. PF2 backgrounds, anathema, and especially archetypes do a much better job. That I give PF2 high marks for.

I haven't engaged much with the exploration rules of PF2. So far, most GMs just ignore them and run games similar to how they always ran them. I'd like to take a good peak at them sometime if I ever want to run PF2. The bigger nut im trying to crack at the moment is how to make the combat and adventuring day work against the systems tenets.

 

[Justice and Rule]

This could be that I've talked so much about my GMing experience on here, and I've probably had more TPKs in PF2 (and other systems for that matter) than five other random DMs combined.
I know that the guy from Taking20 (who made the "I'm Quitting Pathfinder" video several months ago) had a very public response to his group's TPK - something he claimed had never happened to him running any other system.

Yeah, though he had a whole grab bag of things that never really added up. Cody's whole thing always felt like trying to create an excuse for bouncing off a system that he said he liked but probably never fully internalized and thus had problems with. And that's fine, but I suppose it isn't fine when you did a rules comparison on it months previous and said one was better... or something. I dunno, rules can be like relationships: what seemed like a good idea months ago can feel like a bad idea now. That was my history with 5E: desperately wanting to make it work, saying it did, and then when I found something that did work for me, realizing how many excuses I had been making for the game.

I can see why TPKs are easy to have in PF2. It's 1000% due to the critical success/failure +10/-10 math. Criticals are more common in PF2 than in any edition of d20 system I've ever played, and they're frequently more devastating than in any other edition. If you are going against enemies higher level than your character, this problem is compounded with higher DCs that you're more likely to fail and higher bonuses that they're more likely to critically succeed with their hits.

Eh, I don't see it like that at all. TPKs in other editions were easier to get when Save vs. Suck was way more brutal: I'm reminded of how many times I would start up a Baldur's Gate save and have to scum through an encounter because of something like Dire Charm or Hold utterly devastating my party. Just nothing you can do with that sort of stuff, and I think PF2 probably did the best at mitigating that sort of problem while still feeling like what came before.

To me, the +10/-10 is part of the appeal, making tough monsters feel deadly while also making your characters feel suitably powerful against hordes of minions. It also gives you the ability to mitigate such things through tactics and usage of bonuses/penalties.

It's like taking the exploding dice mechanics from Savage Worlds and putting it into a d20 game. But instead of running a pulpy, fast-paced action game, you're playing a game that assumes you are playing a 1-20 level Adventure Path with deeply customized characters that your players have likely grown attached to.

I mean, it's not. Not really. The exploding dice aren't really a thing that you can manage in the same way you can manage bonuses and penalties in a Pathfinder game. One is random, the other can be changed by the players through different actions.

It's an odd design choice that doesn't seem to support the goals of their fiction or business plan, but Paizo did it for their reasons.

I don't see how it doesn't support the goals of the fiction at all. You're gonna have to explain this to me.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I get what you are saying here. 5E has their flaws bonds thing thats like three sentences and its supposed to offer insight into character development. In my experience it only matters if the player wants it to. PF2 backgrounds, anathema, and especially archetypes do a much better job. That I give PF2 high marks for.

5E did a decent amount of stuff trying to have characters interact with roleplaying beyond simply giving characters more combat stuff. I think the failure at a certain level is to keep things too open, too freestyle, but it's still a solid move forwards.

I haven't engaged much with the exploration rules of PF2. So far, most GMs just ignore them and run games similar to how they always ran them. I'd like to take a good peak at them sometime if I ever want to run PF2. The bigger nut im trying to crack at the moment is how to make the combat and adventuring day work against the systems tenets.

Depends on what you are trying to do. Are you trying for multiple fights a day? What's the objective?

 

[Retreater]

Yeah, though he had a whole grab bag of things that never really added up. Cody's whole thing always felt like trying to create an excuse for bouncing off a system that he said he liked but probably never fully internalized and thus had problems with. And that's fine, but I suppose it isn't fine when you did a rules comparison on it months previous and said one was better... or something.

Yes, that was a big departure in his appraisal of the system. In his comparison between 5e and PF2 just a few months prior, he came down on the side of preferring PF2.
There are things that I really do like about the system, most of them in the theory-crafting and character-creation angle more than in actual play. For example, I loved ability score generation, how much an ancestry can shape your character, having backgrounds that greatly matter mechanically (compared to 5e).
I liked PF2 conceptionally so much that I decided to run it a second time with a new group after my first campaign fizzled. I like it enough even to get on these threads and debate it - which may come across as a negative viewpoint, but I'm doing it as a fan of gaming and a desire to see Paizo succeed with this system. I think there is enough good in PF2 that it could be salvaged and be honed into a fine competitor to 5e.

Eh, I don't see it like that at all. TPKs in other editions were easier to get when Save vs. Suck was way more brutal: I'm reminded of how many times I would start up a Baldur's Gate save and have to scum through an encounter because of something like Dire Charm or Hold utterly devastating my party.

I have to admit, I never played Baldur's Gate, because I could never get it to run on a computer I had. I'm guessing it was a faithful reproduction of the mechanics of 2e or 3e?
Yes, I absolutely had TPKs in 3e (not so much in 2e). Usually those TPKs were because I ran brutally hard adventures and was playtesting (and writing) for a company known for extreme difficulty. One particularly nasty TPK I ran involved underwater Evard's Black Tentacles and a swarm of shadows draining Strength. Or creating fiendish hydras immune to acid and fire damage, so nothing could stop their regeneration. The TPKs that I have had in 3e or 5e was because I was a nasty DM. I pushed the encounters too hard. It wasn't because the system was designed to be that nasty.
In short, I had TPKs because I had broken the system, not because I was following the guidelines of the system.

To me, the +10/-10 is part of the appeal, making tough monsters feel deadly while also making your characters feel suitably powerful against hordes of minions.

If you like that, I'm glad. I think it is definitely stacked against the PCs. Feeling powerful against a minion, dropping a low HP goblin for example, doesn't matter as much when the boss monster drops a character in one round, taking that player out of the fun. Massive amounts of damage against lower challenge monsters is often wasted, but massive damage against a PC is not. You're looking at instantly being dropped to Dying 2 if you were hit by a Critical.
Big damage criticals are always worse to a PC, who is intended to live for many sessions and be the star of the show. A GM always has more fodder - we have bestiaries full of them. Players don't have that luxury, nor does a GM's campaign continuity.

I mean, it's not. Not really. The exploding dice aren't really a thing that you can manage in the same way you can manage bonuses and penalties in a Pathfinder game. One is random, the other can be changed by the players through different actions.

I would argue that there's nothing a player can really do to mitigate this. You can spend an action to raise a shield to boost your AC. You can attempt to demoralize an opponent (on a single turn only - you can't use it more than once an encounter). You're looking at a handful of ways to increase your AC or lower your opponent's attack bonus. These are not sufficient when you are normally fighting opponents above you in level, which is the standard in Paizo's encounter design.
And then consider the characters - like casters - who don't have the action economy to do this. Move into position, 2-action cast, and that's all folks.
At least in Savage Worlds the intent of the game is that it's quick and brutal, and the players know it. Which brings me to the next point....

I don't see how it doesn't support the goals of the fiction at all. You're gonna have to explain this to me.

What is the feel of Pathfinder? Fast, furious action (like Savage Worlds)? Grim and perilous adventure (like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)? Is it horror fiction like Call of Cthulhu or Alien?
The feel of Pathfinder is heroic fantasy. Paizo's business model depends on Adventure Paths, which encourage continuity in a massive, epic campaign usually spanning 20 levels. Having a stalwart hero dropping to dying after a single hit, bleeding out on the battlefield, always in danger of death doesn't capture this feel. If anything, it encourages players to separate from the fiction, viewing it like they would Dark Souls or another video game.
In my first PF2 campaign I had a player decide his character to be the heir of the citadel on Hellknight Hill. He got deeply into the mini-game of restoring the citadel, taking feats and skill ranks into things that would help him play out the fiction of restoring this citadel to its glory.
That character was dead in a handful of sessions (along with the rest of the party). Did any of the players make replacement characters with any ties to the story? Some tried, but after those characters also perished in a few encounters, they gave up on that. The game devolved into a party of murder hobos going from one combat scene to another.
The same thing ultimately happened in my Abomination Vaults game: a party of mercenaries traipsing through a dungeon from one fight to the next.
This is precisely what PF2's design encourages. It doesn't support immersion. It doesn't let you play out the fiction of being characters in a dynamic world, taking part in a story (other than "we faced great odds, half our party died").
If anything, if Paizo wanted to promote an AP-focused design, they should have used a flattened math to have more predictable battles with the support for big, climactic battles as a rare occurrence.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Yes, that was a big departure in his appraisal of the system. In his comparison between 5e and PF2 just a few months prior, he came down on the side of preferring PF2.
There are things that I really do like about the system, most of them in the theory-crafting and character-creation angle more than in actual play. For example, I loved ability score generation, how much an ancestry can shape your character, having backgrounds that greatly matter mechanically (compared to 5e).
I liked PF2 conceptionally so much that I decided to run it a second time with a new group after my first campaign fizzled. I like it enough even to get on these threads and debate it - which may come across as a negative viewpoint, but I'm doing it as a fan of gaming and a desire to see Paizo succeed with this system. I think there is enough good in PF2 that it could be salvaged and be honed into a fine competitor to 5e.

I mean, again, given how he defended it, I think he ultimately wasn't able to keep the two games straight and this ended up being detrimental to things. I think if you come into PF2 trying to play it like 5E, it's going to buck you a bit.

I have to admit, I never played Baldur's Gate, because I could never get it to run on a computer I had. I'm guessing it was a faithful reproduction of the mechanics of 2e or 3e?

2E. Excellent series of games, but shows off how utterly godawful magic could be. If you can't play it, I thought Ranged Touch's Mages and Murderdads series was a pretty good (and funny) book club-style Let's Play/Discussion of it. Though I fully recognize they are probably not everyone's cup of tea.

Yes, I absolutely had TPKs in 3e (not so much in 2e). Usually those TPKs were because I ran brutally hard adventures and was playtesting (and writing) for a company known for extreme difficulty. One particularly nasty TPK I ran involved underwater Evard's Black Tentacles and a swarm of shadows draining Strength. Or creating fiendish hydras immune to acid and fire damage, so nothing could stop their regeneration. The TPKs that I have had in 3e or 5e was because I was a nasty DM. I pushed the encounters too hard. It wasn't because the system was designed to be that nasty.

In short, I had TPKs because I had broken the system, not because I was following the guidelines of the system.

I mean, my problems with 5E have been that you can mistakenly set up a TPK without realizing it. The problem is that the CR isn't consistent, and it's not even consistent with how it is inconsistent: at early levels it's way more difficult, but once you hit 4-5th level you're generally pretty solid and you can get the action economy to work for you (particularly true once all the martials start getting second attacks).

But there are just huge blindspots, particularly with things like spells and saves. It's not even about being a nasty GM, but just being an efficient one can utterly mess a party up. And with how save progression goes in that game, it just gets worse. So if you are fighting one of the dozens of "Bag o' Hitpoints" enemies, you'll probably romp because you have a bunch of abilities to change the battlefield. But when they have spells and such? Man, I've always felt like I had to hold back a bit in 5E when I had a caster in play because high level casters can just easily demolish a party that isn't prepared for them, and 5E is good at lulling people into that sort of state.

If you like that, I'm glad. I think it is definitely stacked against the PCs. Feeling powerful against a minion, dropping a low HP goblin for example, doesn't matter as much when the boss monster drops a character in one round, taking that player out of the fun. Massive amounts of damage against lower challenge monsters is often wasted, but massive damage against a PC is not. You're looking at instantly being dropped to Dying 2 if you were hit by a Critical.
Big damage criticals are always worse to a PC, who is intended to live for many sessions and be the star of the show. A GM always has more fodder - we have bestiaries full of them. Players don't have that luxury, nor does a GM's campaign continuity.

I mean, it's meant to create a sense of danger. That's the point of it. In 5E, that can lack because a lot of the enemies are just not all that great... unless they have spells, at which point things get rough. But PF2, for me, has been great at making martial enemies tough and interesting as heck. If you are fighting something that is going to be tough, you are going to look to try and find every advantage you can, rather than just being able to alpha-strike it away.

And big damage criticals aren't wasted on minions; taking down stuff that would have normally taken time is the point of showing progress.

I would argue that there's nothing a player can really do to mitigate this. You can spend an action to raise a shield to boost your AC. You can attempt to demoralize an opponent (on a single turn only - you can't use it more than once an encounter). You're looking at a handful of ways to increase your AC or lower your opponent's attack bonus. These are not sufficient when you are normally fighting opponents above you in level, which is the standard in Paizo's encounter design.
And then consider the characters - like casters - who don't have the action economy to do this. Move into position, 2-action cast, and that's all folks.
At least in Savage Worlds the intent of the game is that it's quick and brutal, and the players know it. Which brings me to the next point....

I mean, Tripping is one of the big ones that you're missing, but there are other ways to apply penalties (through feats or spells) that hurt an opponent, let alone reducing their action economy. If you never got the hang of them, that's fine; maybe it's just not for you. But I don't think your thesis holds up more broadly.

What is the feel of Pathfinder? Fast, furious action (like Savage Worlds)? Grim and perilous adventure (like Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay)? Is it horror fiction like Call of Cthulhu or Alien?
The feel of Pathfinder is heroic fantasy. Paizo's business model depends on Adventure Paths, which encourage continuity in a massive, epic campaign usually spanning 20 levels. Having a stalwart hero dropping to dying after a single hit, bleeding out on the battlefield, always in danger of death doesn't capture this feel. If anything, it encourages players to separate from the fiction, viewing it like they would Dark Souls or another video game.
In my first PF2 campaign I had a player decide his character to be the heir of the citadel on Hellknight Hill. He got deeply into the mini-game of restoring the citadel, taking feats and skill ranks into things that would help him play out the fiction of restoring this citadel to its glory.
That character was dead in a handful of sessions (along with the rest of the party). Did any of the players make replacement characters with any ties to the story? Some tried, but after those characters also perished in a few encounters, they gave up on that. The game devolved into a party of murder hobos going from one combat scene to another.
The same thing ultimately happened in my Abomination Vaults game: a party of mercenaries traipsing through a dungeon from one fight to the next.
This is precisely what PF2's design encourages. It doesn't support immersion. It doesn't let you play out the fiction of being characters in a dynamic world, taking part in a story (other than "we faced great odds, half our party died").
If anything, if Paizo wanted to promote an AP-focused design, they should have used a flattened math to have more predictable battles with the support for big, climactic battles as a rare occurrence.

I don't really believe this because this is the only place where I see this happening. You say that this is what PF2's design encourages, but I have not seen people continually complaining about multiple TPKs within the system anywhere but here. If I google it, the first result is people asking about the TPK module, and then all these threads here on this board. I want to engage with this, but I just don't have a frame of reference in which to do so.