Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

CapnZapp · Oct 6, 2019

GrahamWills said:
Since this is a thread about actual play, i’ll put my experience here rather than theorycrafting.

We have played ten sessions as stated in my post, and finally we got it right (we believe). That's why I put my actual play experience in this thread.

My experience with PF2 is that there are a lot of rules. You can get them right, but are (exceedingly) unlikely to do so if you don't actually read the rules but instead just assume things work like before. (I myself highlight maybe seven different instances where things doesn't quite work like we first assumed)

In fact, since you repeatedly boast of not actually reading the rules I specifically call out as non-intuitive, you will have to forgive me for not seeing a point discussing the issue further with you.

Mistwell · Oct 6, 2019

GrahamWills said:
Cap’s enthusiasm for disliking PF2 is getting the better of him here; adding smileys to statements is always a good hint the writer doesn’t actually believe it, but is just exaggerating for effect.

To me, who has no axe to grind in this, it looks like you're the one being rude. His review looked pretty fair and genuine to me, and based on actual play experience, which is the purpose of this thread.

Tony Vargas · Oct 6, 2019

Eric V said:
Other games also have the situation where initiative =/= time for arrows to fly.

Its an issue I've noticed with d20 cyclical initiative since 3.0 - the solution, I've found, is not to roll initiative until something actually happens.
If you end up calling for a turn from a character who has no idea anything is happening, you've invoked the wrong-sub-system.

There's a thread around here somewhere about assassins not being able to use their ability because of how initiative works.

Sounds like a "Murphy's Rule." Obviously, an ability that could never work wouldn't be included, so interpretations that result in such can be discarded. No?

I thought it was standard in RPGs that sometimes a member of the party notices something the others don't...

Sure. Surprise.

CapnZapp · Oct 6, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Its an issue I've noticed with d20 cyclical initiative since 3.0 - the solution, I've found, is not to roll initiative until something actually happens.
If you end up calling for a turn from a character who has no idea anything is happening, you've invoked the wrong-sub-system.

This thread isn't about some abstract ideal of a ruleset, though. It's about Pathfinder 2.

The idea "not to roll" for initiative until something happens is kind of hard to put in practice if the way you find out when something is happening, is... by rolling initiative!

So generic advice from armchair theorists is... well, let's just say should you have identified a specific spot where I am using the rules wrong, pointing that out would be helpful and welcomed!

Tony Vargas · Oct 7, 2019

CapnZapp said:
This thread isn't about

Threads drift. This one was about actual play experience, but you segued from that to a long, contrived hypothetical illustrating what might be an issue with PF2 initiative.
Eric commented that it was a common problem in many systems - an oblique 'defense' to your 'attack' perhaps - to which I replied that the issue was evident, but easily soluble, IMX, with d20 games as far back as 3.0.

So, I made no claim about PF2. At most, implied that "lotsa games have that problem" isn't a defense, if indeed, any attacks or defenses, real or imagined were involved.

Eric V · Oct 7, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Threads drift. This one was about actual play experience, but you segued from that to a long, contrived hypothetical illustrating what might be an issue with PF2 initiative.
Eric commented that it was a common problem in many systems - an oblique 'defense' to your 'attack' perhaps - to which I replied that the issue was evident, but easily soluble, IMX, with d20 games as far back as 3.0.

So, I made no claim about PF2. At most, implied that "lotsa games have that problem" isn't a defense, if indeed, any attacks or defenses, real or imagined were involved.

I just meant that if it isn't a problem in other systems, I'm not sure how it could be a problem in PF2. PF2 still has a GM, after all...

Tony Vargas · Oct 7, 2019

Eric V said:
I just meant that if it isn't a problem in other systems, I'm not sure how it could be a problem in PF2. PF2 still has a GM, after all...

I'm not sure. The Capn's hypothetical was long on unintuitive results, short on the actual mechanics implied to have caused them.

CapnZapp · Oct 7, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
Threads drift. This one was about actual play experience, but you segued from that to a long, contrived hypothetical illustrating what might be an issue with PF2 initiative.

No, this was a direct example highlighting actual in-game issues we found out just recently by playing the game (and discussing/explaining things between sessions, and finally by me asking over at Paizo forums, but I didn't want to bore you with those details).

What's with you people, repeatedly accusing me of not doing what I'm saying I'm doing?

The thread-starter (and a mod!) specifically called out for discussions from actually playing the game, so now I'm doing that, and you're still not happy....?

CapnZapp · Oct 7, 2019

Tony Vargas said:
I'm not sure. The Capn's hypothetical was long on unintuitive results, short on the actual mechanics implied to have caused them.

Feel free to then actually engage with the Capn, and ask him directly about passages you want to know more about, before dismissing his findings out of hand, eh?

And what's with the "hypotheticals"? It was an example. Yes, I distilled it down, stripping out irrelevant cruft (and also: can't remember the real numbers and sequences. But I can tell you this: the real heroes were walking down the stairs into Madame Mvashti's cellar).

But it was born out of our actual experience playing the game (and trying to grok the rules).

Did we follow the rules 100%? Maybe, maybe not. Hard to tell when nobody actually discusses the example and the rules that lie behind it, instead preferring to waste time and effort on refusing to believe the example is real...

On the other hand, maybe that's how the game gets recommendations for being easy... That nobody actually believes it might not be (even though we're talking about 600+ pages written with a programmatic exactness, which I imagine will come as a brutal shock to someone accustomed to 5E's natural language)!

5ekyu · Oct 7, 2019

Eric V said:
I am wondering how different this really is from other RPGs I've played...I've never had a toon spot things better/hide better based on initiative rolls. I know in PF2 skills are associated with initiative, but for the purpose of initiative, right? Not a standard skill check, is what I'm understanding.

Other games also have the situation where initiative =/= time for arrows to fly. There's a thread around here somewhere about assassins not being able to use their ability because of how initiative works. Seems to me it's always been the case that just because you roll initiative, you don't necessarily get to go right away.

I thought it was standard in RPGs that sometimes a member of the party notices something the others don't...GMs have always had to control the flow of information, no?

Overall, what I'm getting from this is that initiative isn't tied solely to DEX, and that's a good thing.

Well, to me it seems a bigger disconnect to say "in this scene you go first because of your high perception score/result" but then also say "but you havent seen a thing that gives you reason to go do anything".

I like having initiative be perception based but it would seem to me that that should be a perception check in full - used for spotting too, not just a half-check. That would resolve the conflict and help the sequence in the scene make sense organically.

This has the feel of a "look down the alley for ogre I was chasing" where you see the ogre but miss the dragon cuz you were looking for ogres.

Let percrption checks be perception checks and let the GM use those for initiative order - fine. But making initiative checks be percrption checks that dont determine perception is... conflicted.

In 5e play, a GM can let initiative be percrption based, because its an ability check by using the variant scores ruke, but it's not required to be separate. When visibility was compromised, I have done it more than a few times.

Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

CapnZapp

Legend

Mistwell

Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)

Tony Vargas

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

Tony Vargas

Legend

Eric V

Hero

Tony Vargas

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

CapnZapp

Legend

5ekyu

Hero

Similar Threads