What gets me playing Draw Steel and not Pathfinder 2e?

[Enrahim]

Not by the rules so can't check easily, but can PCs still move at full sprint speed whilst below 0, and what if they get hit again?

Fastest I can see anyone can move without powers are move + main action degraded to move (which from my reading do not trigger bleed). If you get into a position where you are not chargeable this should be enough to prevent melee main action against you. Similar if you get cover against line of effects. In most typical fantasy skirmish scenarios, I would think these conditions typically would be available within 10 squares.

But wouldn't that cut both ways? It gives a mechanical incentive to tightly pursue PCs to prevent that from happening.

Possibly. But see last section in monster book page 25 (possible spoiler for players, so not quoting just in case)

Sorry not arguing for the sake of arguing, if DS! does have a better retreat options than other D&D-ish games, that's major like the way Worlds Without Number is one of the first D&D-ish games which has proper "stealth kill" rules and it genuinely changes how you can approach situations (for the better imo).

It is something like that I am thinking as well, which is why I am really curious if this actually can work the way I hope it does.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Essentially retreating is not viable in 3E, 4E, or 5E D&D. Retreating, RAW, and without the DM being intentionally generous, is just a good way to ensure a TPK (or perhaps a TPK for all but one PC, if there's a PC who is a lot faster than both all the other PCs and all the opponents, and can sufficiently outrange enemy ranged attacks/spells) in all those editions, short of things like magic which teleports the entire party away or temporarily CCs the enemy (which is not very accessible).

You need to fundamentally design with retreating being a major and viable mode of play if you want that to really work, and few games do that, because they simply don't simulate the factors that make retreats viable IRL (particularly that being that pursuing enemies don't want to die or even become exhausted IRL, whereas in easily 95% of D&D combats, enemies are run as 100% uncaring for their own lives and well-being - HP existing makes this issue much worse because DMs can be too certain enemies can "safely" pursue even if they incur some damage, which helps make retreating invalid as a strategy in D&D), and far too many fantasy beings and monsters are far too good at killing people fleeing battle.

Honestly, its not even limited to the D&D-sphere. As you say, only reason it works without a game making active effort to support it is the GM either overly, or by--very selective--reading of movement and related rules to allow it. This is not helped by the fact frequently opposition in fantasy games are faster than the typical PC.

 

[Hermes_Alexandria]

I have now played both online with VTTs.

Both have modern, streamlined mechanics that feel a little video gamey.

PF2 feels like Baldur's Gate 3. It's great, it's deep, has a million options, but decision paralysis can be a problem on which resource you are going to burn this round.

DS feels like Diablo. The best ability is obvious, the builder/spender mechanics means you'll probably have an even better ability available next round, but the truly optimal play involves complex combos with your team.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have now played both online with VTTs.

Both have modern, streamlined mechanics that feel a little video gamey.

PF2 feels like Baldur's Gate 3. It's great, it's deep, has a million options, but decision paralysis can be a problem on which resource you are going to burn this round.

Though PF2e is one of the few D&D-adjacent I like, this is pretty much true at least at upper levels. With some of the classes its not really so true at 1-5. Its not as bad as D&D4e tended to be in that regard, but its visible.

 

[Retreater]

PF2 feels like Baldur's Gate 3. It's great, it's deep, has a million options, but decision paralysis can be a problem on which resource you are going to burn this round.

My experience is that my group really makes few decisions in PF2. We use a rotation of the same abilities every combat. I could basically write a script that would handle most encounters and I could watch TV or something.
1) Do I have an enemy with an exploited vulnerability? If no, do that.
2) Raise shield
3) Am I engaged with an enemy? If no, move as close as I can to that enemy.
4) If any actions remain, swing my sword until no actions remain.
That's essentially what it's been every encounter at every weekly session for the past year.

 

[Thomas Shey]

My experience is that my group really makes few decisions in PF2. We use a rotation of the same abilities every combat. I could basically write a script that would handle most encounters and I could watch TV or something.
1) Do I have an enemy with an exploited vulnerability? If no, do that.
2) Raise shield
3) Am I engaged with an enemy? If no, move as close as I can to that enemy.
4) If any actions remain, swing my sword until no actions remain.
That's essentially what it's been every encounter at every weekly session for the past year.

Most of those are sound as defaults, but show a low-energy/not-thought-through approach if done relentlessly. In particular, your #4 there is almost never a good use of the third action. And only a limited subset of characters should find #3 an automatic best case.

I mean, I don't mean to be insulting to your players, but if you've got people who don't want to actually engage with the mechanics in a game that assumes people will, oddly enough the result is going to be dull.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Most of those are sound as defaults, but show a low-energy/not-thought-through approach if done relentlessly. In particular, your #4 there is almost never a good use of the third action. And only a limited subset of characters should find #3 an automatic best case.

I mean, I don't mean to be insulting to your players, but if you've got people who don't want to actually engage with the mechanics in a game that assumes people will, oddly enough the result is going to be dull.

I don't think that's a fair comment at all.

I think the issue isn't "low energy" and that is just insulting and also a bit ignorant, frankly. The issue is that a certain mode of play is close to optimal, so that mode of play will be reflected.

He's hardly the first poster to point out PF2 can easily devolve into very repetitive combats and near-identical strategies, and claiming it's just lazy or dim players causing this seems to me to be likely to be wrong.

 

[Scribe]

I don't think that's a fair comment at all.

I think the issue isn't "low energy" and that is just insulting and also a bit ignorant, frankly. The issue is that a certain mode of play is close to optimal, so that mode of play will be reflected.

He's hardly the first poster to point out PF2 can easily devolve into very repetitive combats and near-identical strategies, and claiming it's just lazy or dim players causing this seems to me to be likely to be wrong.

I remember a video years ago calling out the repeated loop. Like, many years ago.

 

[Retreater]

Most of those are sound as defaults, but show a low-energy/not-thought-through approach if done relentlessly. In particular, your #4 there is almost never a good use of the third action. And only a limited subset of characters should find #3 an automatic best case.

To be clear, I never have the opportunity to take a 3rd attack in a round. The MAP for 3 attacks (-10) would be too great to consider that.
Best case, I raise shield, and attack twice. The -5 is an acceptable penalty. My first attack is almost always a hit (and often a critical hit).
I still do things like attempt to provide a flank for the rogue to sneak attack. I'll pay attention to make a reactive strike. But I'm tellin' ya, I waited 28 minutes last session to have my entire turn consist of "exploit vulnerability, raise shield, move 20 feet." Didn't get an attack. I got to roll a single recall knowledge check. Next turn (12 minutes later): raise shield, move 20 feet, strike.
Experiences like this have got me thinking "That's it. I've seen everything this system has to offer. I'm completely satisfied without playing this system again."
The amount of effort this system takes to be moderately interesting tactically just isn't a good return on investment for me.

 

[Elvish Lore]

I play in a big Pathfinder 2e campaign... pretty much no one there is lazy, unimaginative, or not smart. All the martials fall into repetitive behavior each turn in order to pursue the optimal course of action.

Maybe our GM could be more helpful/forgiving for us to do non-optimal solutions but, RAW, bonuses to do that sort of thing rarely approach optimal. Many things have been sacrificed to the god of game balance.

Pathfinder 2e is, at times, a crushingly boring game.