Paizo A question about Paizo/PF adventure design

[CapnZapp]

@Retreater: this is also a thing PF2 has in common with 4E.

(And before the outrage starts: claiming two games share a similarity is not the same thing as saying they work the same)

 

[dave2008]

In the Pathfinder 2e adventure path I was just GMing, I found the opposite to be true: every fight was a harrowing life or death struggle. We didn't like that dynamic either.
I think part of the distaste for me comes from the "X number of encounters per level" paradigm present in all post-TSR D&D, meaning there are going to be countless pointless battles to advance in level so the GM can further the plot. By which time most players and GMs lose interest and the campaign ends by 8th level.

Aren't most recent WotC APs recommended (or at least suggested) to use milestone advancement?

 

[dave2008]

Aren't these two quotes (taken from the same post) contradicting each other?

I would say PF2 APs doesn't do whatever you want. I would say they do the exact opposite - they do a very specific thing, and if that's not what you want you have to start changing things around.

I think the "you" in the quote is the OP, not the general you as in "everyone."

 

[Dragonblade]

Thanks for this thread. I have no experience with PF2, but this is intriguing to me. I loved 4e precisely because it was oriented to climactic set piece battles, and eschewed what I called 'trash fights'. Meaningless battles that pose no dramatic risk, but existed to spiphon resources so later fights are artificially 'harder'. I hate the attrition model of D&D, where you are expected to manage your resources and rests across 6-8 encounters. I walked away from 3e and PF1 because both were mired in this type of play and it was too much work to rewrite the systems. I loved 4e, but my critique is that it swung the pendulumn a bit too far in homogenized game class mechanics. But it was a dream to DM!

I love 5e, but my two biggest complaints are a return to emphasizing the attrition model of play, and monster stat blocks that are no longer self-contained and tactically lacking. Most 5e monsters are boring one note wonders. I also hate looking up spells and feats to run monsters. I want to run them right out of the book with no flipping around. 4e did this right. If PF2 is built around per encounter play where it assumes PC's are full strength at every encounter, that is very appealing to me.

I've been tinkering with 5e house rules to get that style of play in 5e. Seems like I should check out PF2.

 

[Retreater]

Aren't most recent WotC APs recommended (or at least suggested) to use milestone advancement?

Those guidelines are also in the PF2 AP I was running, and I followed them as I also do in WotC APs. (I dislike the level grind necessary in APs that don't use milestone advancement.)
However, the default assumption for both systems is traditional XP awards - after all that is built into the GM's encounter design. And that means a pedigree of grindy, unimportant encounters dating back to the inception of TTRPGs. (And honestly, it was even worse in the TSR days.)
The pacing I want is easier to do with milestones, even though I would prefer a variant that uses XP awards but levels characters faster - for example, three sessions of combat/exploration/etc. for a level.

 

[Retreater]

I've been tinkering with 5e house rules to get that style of play in 5e. Seems like I should check out PF2.

For all my complaints about PF2, I think it's definitely worth a look and a test run for every group of 5e/D&D players. I'm not sorry I tried the system. I also rather liked 4e. However, compared to PF2, I find 4e to be better designed, tighter in execution, easier to run. 4e has some terrible adventures though.

 

[CapnZapp]

Thanks for this thread. I have no experience with PF2, but this is intriguing to me. I loved 4e precisely because it was oriented to climactic set piece battles, and eschewed what I called 'trash fights'. Meaningless battles that pose no dramatic risk, but existed to spiphon resources so later fights are artificially 'harder'. I hate the attrition model of D&D, where you are expected to manage your resources and rests across 6-8 encounters. I walked away from 3e and PF1 because both were mired in this type of play and it was too much work to rewrite the systems. I loved 4e, but my critique is that it swung the pendulumn a bit too far in homogenized game class mechanics. But it was a dream to DM!

I love 5e, but my two biggest complaints are a return to emphasizing the attrition model of play, and monster stat blocks that are no longer self-contained and tactically lacking. Most 5e monsters are boring one note wonders. I also hate looking up spells and feats to run monsters. I want to run them right out of the book with no flipping around. 4e did this right. If PF2 is built around per encounter play where it assumes PC's are full strength at every encounter, that is very appealing to me.

I've been tinkering with 5e house rules to get that style of play in 5e. Seems like I should check out PF2.

Please do.

Though PF2 doesn't get you quite to to the finish line - spells still require look-up during play. And there is needless clutter in the between-fights healing up.

But monsters are deadly and varied, and easily the best feature of the game.

Class design isn't as homogenized as 4E (in particular: spells are spells), but unfortunately still rather homogenized.

 

[CapnZapp]

Those guidelines are also in the PF2 AP I was running, and I followed them as I also do in WotC APs. (I dislike the level grind necessary in APs that don't use milestone advancement.)
However, the default assumption for both systems is traditional XP awards - after all that is built into the GM's encounter design. And that means a pedigree of grindy, unimportant encounters dating back to the inception of TTRPGs. (And honestly, it was even worse in the TSR days.)
The pacing I want is easier to do with milestones, even though I would prefer a variant that uses XP awards but levels characters faster - for example, three sessions of combat/exploration/etc. for a level.

Official adventure paths are absolutely written with milestone leveling in mind.

There are even complaints (over at the Paizo forums) of the "we vacuumed the entire level and still ended up 14 XP short of levelling!" sort. The official response is always a polite "we encourage the GM to come up with extra encounters to make sure the heroes start each new chapter at the correct level"...

...instead of the blunter, but IMHO much more honest: "just stop calculating XP and simply level up when the text tells you to. Much simpler and the entire problem goes away. Bonus: you can skip fights without falling behind!"

 

[CapnZapp]

However, compared to PF2, I find 4e to be better designed, tighter in execution, easier to run. 4e has some terrible adventures though.

The big difference in our experience is that PF2 fights consume less playing time than 4E fights. PF2 fights are much more comparable to 3E or 5E fights in that regard.

It isn't the combat rules that let PF2 down, imo. It's the... other rules. The crafting, the medicine, the climbing, recall knowledge, magic item abilities etc etc ETC ETC etc etc and not the actual combat itself.

 

[dave2008]

I love 5e, but my two biggest complaints are a return to emphasizing the attrition model of play, and monster stat blocks that are no longer self-contained and tactically lacking. Most 5e monsters are boring one note wonders. I also hate looking up spells and feats to run monsters. I want to run them right out of the book with no flipping around. 4e did this right. If PF2 is built around per encounter play where it assumes PC's are full strength at every encounter, that is very appealing to me.

Just to be clear, PF2 monsters require you to look up spells just like 5e monsters do (well newer 5e designs included one spell in the stat block).

Also, not all PF2 monsters are more interesting than their 5e counterparts (dragons being a big one for me - and I don't think 5e dragons are even that good). The big advantage PF2 monsters have, IMO, is that at just +3 levels they hit much harder and can soak much better than their 5e variants.