CapnZapp
Legend
@UngeheuerLich you have exactly the kind of (perfectly reasonable and normal) expectations that is likely to trip you up if and when you run Pathfinder 2, or its official adventures at least.
Thank you. So I trust your reasoning here and am sorry for those buying those adventures. I hope Paizo gets it sorted out witheir next ones. I think it is great for the hobby to have an alternate more crunchy version of DnD.@UngeheuerLich you have exactly the kind of (perfectly reasonable and normal) expectations that is likely to trip you up if and when you run Pathfinder 2, or its official adventures at least.
It doesn't, actually.No, the point is that in PF2, the game breaks utterly if the GM makes the heroes fight two encounters at the same time.
Actually the better summary is "it does".It doesn't, actually.
Thank you. So I trust your reasoning here and am sorry for those buying those adventures. I hope Paizo gets it sorted out witheir next ones. I think it is great for the hobby to have an alternate more crunchy version of DnD.
I also like that they were not afraid of using things that were thrown out from DnDnext, because it was too similar to 4e or too innovative at that time (when wizard needed to recover from past mistakes).
In theory you are correct and it isn't something "exclusive". It's not binary, it's a sliding scale. You are far less likely to end up with a TPK in 5e in general, and so you are far less likely to end up with a TPK if you just have a squad of guards retreat, or if two monsters decide to co-habitate.Like thing I disagree with CapnZapp is this particular feature being 2e exclusive per say.
You know, I think this is the flaw with your emphasis on official adventures-- no adventure can be designed for every type of play, usually in this genre when a monster has the kinds of interactions you're claiming pf2e can't handle, they instruct you on where the monster wants to go and what encounters come in. If the game assumed all encounters have to be combine-able, then by nature, no encounter could ever be truly challenging on its own.Actually the better summary is "it does".
Yes, Low + Low is still manageable, but let's not let that case obscure the (by far) more important take-away, that if you just pick two adjacent encounters at random from an official AP, you are far too likely to end up with a too-lethal fight on your hands. So the general messange needs to be "don't smush your encounters together". Yes, a GM that understands this and has mastered the skill of GMing PF2 can find ways to make it work, but for the general reader the only reasonable message to send out is:
"Don't have your guards flee or bring in reinforcements. Don't have monsters act intelligently by seeking out safety in numbers."
If a reader reads only that, at least he or she won't unnecessarily TPK his or her party, and that needs to be the main takeaway imo.
Best Regards,
Let it be "Read the encounter building rules for the game you're playing" so we don't decieve people about the game system they're playing.@The-Magic-Sword
I'm not attacking adventures for being static. I'm talking about how the design of Pathfinder 2 makes it difficult or risky to combine encounters in "natural" or "intuitive" ways. I'm talking about how a d20 or 5E DM that feels confident about her gamesmastering skills can easily end up inadvertently causing a PC dead, since you can't rely just on "natural" or "intuitive" here.
So if you readers out there take only one thing away from this discussion, let it be "don't smush encounters together".