Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E - does it play better than it looks at first glance + guides/resources for new DMs

[JThursby]

I'm really interested in JThursby and payn's comments on using Foundry for PF 2e. I'm thinking of starting a small campaign and I'm wondering if Foundry works well as a GM's aid for applying conditions, tracking all the bonuses, etc. for in-person play, and not using it as a map and tactical combat tracker. In other words, I don't think all the players want to have to look at a video screen, but I wouldn't mind using it as a GM tool. Thanks for any helpful advice.

If you want to use Foundry in that way I recommend simply having the PCs, NPCs and Hazards as tokens on a single, large landing page. From there it is fairly easy to apply conditions, feat and spell effects, monster ability effects, etc. Since all official content is already included in the system this should require no prep on your part aside from anything you've home brewed. This should make the monster turns faster and easier to run.

If you can splurge I would whole heartily recommend using a screen-table, or more economically just a video screen on top of a table. It's how I prefer to run my professional in-person games and it simplifies my prep and combat tracking. Being able to have the entirety of a level of Abomination Vaults or Dungeon of the Mad Mage on display in person is immensely satisfying, and pretty useful for the party to see where they've been and where they can go. You can still use miniatures and whatnot, they can just be placed on top of where the digital tokens are.

The thing about VTTs in person I see the most push back on is digital dice rolling. There's an easy solution; don't roll the dice digitally, just use the VTT to keep track of the numbers. I personally love having the click-and-resolve simplicity built into the system, but it's entirely optional depending on how you implement Foundry as a GM tool. There's also a compromise to be had in using the Dice So Nice module to simulate 3D dice, complete with the click-clack sound they make.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Also, are there any good resources for getting started with PF2E (not like, getting started with RPGs, just PF2E specifically), like particularly those reminding me of key differences between 3E/PF1, 5E, and PF2 in terms of rules that might get overlooked or misremembered?

It plays better than it looks IMO.

For instance, it's hard to see how the 3 action economy incentivizes things like finding something to do with your third action other than attack -- for example demoralize or bon mot, but also something as simple as moving away after attacking so that a monster needs to spend 1-2 actions moving toward you vs. using it's very powerful 3 action attack.

It looks like there are so many feats and options but 1) there really isn't at each level and decision point, 2) feats generally broaden options rather than add power so not as much issue with 'optimal' feats.

Following on that, it's not obvious with a first read that PF2e is mostly a game of trying to get in scene tactical advantages vs. pre-scene character building. Which is direct follow on to +1s and -1s are actually pretty good.

There are some things I don't love -- spellcasters/wizards could be stronger at lower levels, skill usage feat gates, still having PC-like spells in monster blocks -- but overall it tends to play pretty well especially if you use a variety of encounters instead of the heavily loaded severe/extreme of initial adventure paths. High difficulty encounters especially with 1-2 monsters have a dynamic (low PC hit rate, very hard to make saves, etc.) that is very rough for the PCs-- which I think is great feel when you want that but not all the time to keep the 'heroic' feel alive.

 

[Campbell]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

 

[payn]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

Tactically, it works different than previous games too. For example, low level characters taking on an Ogre. In 3E/PF1, many of the wizards spells will still be quite effective. If the wiz can debuff, or even better control, the rest of the party can gank the Ogre. In PF2, the math makes a lot of spells useless, so you really have to pay attention to the riders and what is going to give the party any advantage (no matter how small). What is effective in PF2 is very different, but doesn't appear so until you hit the upper challenge ratings.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

True, extreme is extreme. That said, I think they made a mistake in labeling the lower difficulty encounters.

Low and moderate sounds like "below average" and "you shouldn't use these if you want a challenge" perhaps instead of you "you should use a lot of these for a standard heroic adventure" which is what they are.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Tactically, it works different than previous games too. For example, low level characters taking on an Ogre. In 3E/PF1, many of the wizards spells will still be quite effective. If the wiz can debuff, or even better control, the rest of the party can gank the Ogre. In PF2, the math makes a lot of spells useless, so you really have to pay attention to the riders and what is going to give the party any advantage (no matter how small). What is effective in PF2 is very different, but doesn't appear so until you hit the upper challenge ratings.

It's in there but not as clearly laid out in the books as it could be that there is a big difference between say a single Level +3 monster and the equivalent XP of lower level monsters as well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It looks like there are so many feats and options but 1) there really isn't at each level and decision point, 2) feats generally broaden options rather than add power so not as much issue with 'optimal' feats.

Also, its easy to fall into the trap of thinking there's a million feats when most of them are siloed by class or other issues so a given character doesn't have nearly as many as it appears.

Following on that, it's not obvious with a first read that PF2e is mostly a game of trying to get in scene tactical advantages vs. pre-scene character building. Which is direct follow on to +1s and -1s are actually pretty good.

Yup. As I've noted, it tends to be a place the like/not like decision lands on hard.

There are some things I don't love -- spellcasters/wizards could be stronger at lower levels, skill usage feat gates, still having PC-like spells in monster blocks -- but overall it tends to play pretty well especially if you use a variety of encounters instead of the heavily loaded severe/extreme of initial adventure paths. High difficulty encounters especially with 1-2 monsters have a dynamic (low PC hit rate, very hard to make saves, etc.) that is very rough for the PCs-- which I think is great feel when you want that but not all the time to keep the 'heroic' feel alive.

This last part deserves emphasis; I'm convinced a fair bit of hostility to PF2e comes from people who initially hit a lot of up-rev encouters in APs or elsewhere and derived their impression of the overall game from it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

Yeah. Its a striking difference from D&D3e or PF1e. Weirdly, as best I can say, some people don't like it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True, extreme is extreme. That said, I think they made a mistake in labeling the lower difficulty encounters.

Low and moderate sounds like "below average" and "you shouldn't use these if you want a challenge" perhaps instead of you "you should use a lot of these for a standard heroic adventure" which is what they are.

I think that again has more to do with people's carried-forward expectation from prior editions, where anything down-rev from you at all could be pretty reliably roflstomped.

 

[president16us]

If you want to use Foundry in that way I recommend simply having the PCs, NPCs and Hazards as tokens on a single, large landing page. From there it is fairly easy to apply conditions, feat and spell effects, monster ability effects, etc. Since all official content is already included in the system this should require no prep on your part aside from anything you've home brewed. This should make the monster turns faster and easier to run.

If you can splurge I would whole heartily recommend using a screen-table, or more economically just a video screen on top of a table. It's how I prefer to run my professional in-person games and it simplifies my prep and combat tracking. Being able to have the entirety of a level of Abomination Vaults or Dungeon of the Mad Mage on display in person is immensely satisfying, and pretty useful for the party to see where they've been and where they can go. You can still use miniatures and whatnot, they can just be placed on top of where the digital tokens are.

The thing about VTTs in person I see the most push back on is digital dice rolling. There's an easy solution; don't roll the dice digitally, just use the VTT to keep track of the numbers. I personally love having the click-and-resolve simplicity built into the system, but it's entirely optional depending on how you implement Foundry as a GM tool. There's also a compromise to be had in using the Dice So Nice module to simulate 3D dice, complete with the click-clack sound they make.

Thanks for the great replies from Retreater, payn, and JThursby! I didn't grasp that tokens represent a key to a lot of the functionality. I will strongly consider using the full VTT functionality.