Paizo A question about Paizo/PF adventure design

[dave2008]

In the case of PF2, you would never face goblins when you have access to fireball, or would simply get no experience for fighting them. Monsters would be tougher and it would be unlikely you could one shot them with a spell. Plus all spells are greatly limited in effectiveness.
Players simply don't have the AoE output to deal with large groups of suitably challenging monsters.

Ya, the more I read about PF2 I think it just may not fit my version of fantasy RPG

 

[dave2008]

Sure, but that’s not what I’m saying. One can discuss a context-specific issue without portraying it as a general problem.

Agreed - which I actually already did!

The way I handled this was to use the guidelines as a way to understand the nature of what was living there, so I could communicate an appropriate level of danger to the PCs.

For example, my PCs stumbled actoss a shambler’s lair while exploring. I knew it would be a really dangerous encounter, so I described the effect it had on its environment. They saw skulls and other signs that something nasty lurked within. And then my PCs got to decide what to do (avoid the area in this case).

When I talk about having tools that work, this is what I mean. I can look at the numbers and say “this situation will be X dangerous” and use that as one of my tools in my toolbox.

Yep, not how I typically design. Perhaps I could do things that way, but it definitely feels wrong to me (I am not saying it is wrong - just not for me). Perhaps I could learn to do it, but I don't see much pushing me to give PF2 a serious try anymore. I was really excited when it came out, but that as dissipated significantly since.

 

[kenada]

I guess the "resting" is not referring to a 10-minute rest to regain focus points, use battle medicine, repair checks, etc.? Should we infer that "resting" after a moderate-threat is a 8-hour/full/long rest?
Because I've yet to have a single encounter after which the party didn't want to take at least 10 minutes to recharge those particular resources.

I think the intent is that a moderate-threat encounter can make you want to stop for a breather, but if a group isn’t meeting the system’s tactical expectations, it will have a very rough time.

I wish this had been spelled out more explicitly because resting could be taken either way. It would make it easier to calibrate expectations and evaluate whether a group is playing at the desired level.

 

[dave2008]

You're misremembering, here's a quote courtesy of DND Beyond:


Compare this to the encounter guidelines from 2e, courtesy of Archives of Nethys:

Both games define their ultimate difficulty as having a risk of the party being defeated and requiring good tactics. Their penultimate levels both cite defeat and death as a real possibility. There are differences between the two games (2e isn't reliant on an attrition model, so its encounters are a little fiercer by themselves) but on a basic level they map pretty well in terms of stated expectation-- the main catch is that 2e is more expressive about what 'risks defeat' likely means in the 5e entry and what kind of party can take on its extreme encounter-- note the 'or' used at the end, extreme encounters are still ok if used rarely, even when the party has suffered some attrition.

I disagree. To me the 5e "deadly" sounds more like a PF2 "moderate" or "severe."

5e deadly: A deadly encounter could be lethal for one or more player characters. Survival often requires good tactics and quick thinking, and the party risks defeat

compared too:

PF2 Severe: encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat. These encounters are most appropriate for important moments in your story, such as confronting a final boss. Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open

You also are not taking into account the attrition nature of 5e design. I honestly don't remember if that is a thing in the PF2 design, but it sound like it is not based on the threads I have read about "free" healing between encounters. In fact, in the example above PF2 does a much better job of explaining that a lack of resources effects the encounter severity. These is absent from 5e description and you have dig deeper into the XP budget per adventure day to get there.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I guess the "resting" is not referring to a 10-minute rest to regain focus points, use battle medicine, repair checks, etc.? Should we infer that "resting" after a moderate-threat is a 8-hour/full/long rest?
Because I've yet to have a single encounter after which the party didn't want to take at least 10 minutes to recharge those particular resources.

I think its the 'multiple 10 minutes to restore health completely using medicine/lay on hands/ etc' kind of resting. it also might mean not blowing your highest level slots right off the bat, and don't forget whatever the guidelines say, players will always want to get as much back as they have a chance to. So even if it was yrivial, theres a good chance theyll blow focus points and recharge them as often as possible.

 

[Retreater]

I think its the 'multiple 10 minutes to restore health completely using medicine/lay on hands/ etc' kind of resting. it also might mean not blowing your highest level slots right off the bat, and don't forget whatever the guidelines say, players will always want to get as much back as they have a chance to. So even if it was yrivial, theres a good chance theyll blow focus points and recharge them as often as possible.

True, but in PF2, a GM can't really set the pace. The system sets the pace. And if that means every encounter starts with the PCs fully rested with no extra complications or you have a likely TPK, I guess that's what you have to do.
I haven't seen a single instance in the first two books of the first AP where it doesn't matter if the party retreats and takes a full rest between encounters. Completely static encounters with no stakes at all.

 

[Zsong]

I guess the "resting" is not referring to a 10-minute rest to regain focus points, use battle medicine, repair checks, etc.? Should we infer that "resting" after a moderate-threat is a 8-hour/full/long rest?
Because I've yet to have a single encounter after which the party didn't want to take at least 10 minutes to recharge those particular resources.

Irl wouldn’t any sane person is want a short rest after fighting if they can. A little catch your breath, clean your wounds, get some water.

 

[Retreater]

Irl wouldn’t any sane person is want a short rest after fighting if they can. A little catch your breath, clean your wounds, get some water.

IIRC, it was built into Rules Cyclopedia as a requirement for every fight or hour of exploration?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

True, but in PF2, a GM can't really set the pace. The system sets the pace. And if that means every encounter starts with the PCs fully rested with no extra complications or you have a likely TPK, I guess that's what you have to do.
I haven't seen a single instance in the first two books of the first AP where it doesn't matter if the party retreats and takes a full rest between encounters. Completely static encounters with no stakes at all.

That hasn't been my experience and I've been GMing weekly since release. I've had encounters start with sub-max health pcs, or without focus points and go just fine. The trick is that the party can use limited resources like spells and potions to compensate when theyre pushed. Fully rested PCs still dunk on hard encounters (though theyll definetly feel them) once players have a feel for the game. The system isnt tying your hands in any meangful sense.

 

[Retreater]

That hasn't been my experience and I've been GMing weekly since release. I've had encounters start with sub-max health pcs, or without focus points and go just fine. The trick is that the party can use limited resources like spells and potions to compensate when theyre pushed. Fully rested PCs still dunk on hard encounters (though theyll definetly feel them) once players have a feel for the game. The system isnt tying your hands in any meangful sense.

I don't know. Maybe my players were just bad? We would regularly have shattered shields, characters low on HP, and more after even moderate encounters. To throw anything against them in that condition would be a death sentence.