Pathfinder 2E Another Deadly Session, and It's Getting Old

[Retreater]

(Just to take a single example, how the rules seem to expect players to rest for no more than 10 to 30 minutes, except the overall difficulty makes players extremely reluctant to resume adventuring before being fully healed up, which can easily take 60 minutes or more)

Is that expectation stated in the rules anywhere? If so, my group is really abusing the Treat Wounds action. Basically they have been able to take all the time they need between encounters. (And to be fair, the AP is largely set up this way: a single fight, then the next encounter is located far enough away that no one will interfere with a rest, or come to the aid of an ally.)

 

[CapnZapp]

Is that expectation stated in the rules anywhere? If so, my group is really abusing the Treat Wounds action. Basically they have been able to take all the time they need between encounters. (And to be fair, the AP is largely set up this way: a single fight, then the next encounter is located far enough away that no one will interfere with a rest, or come to the aid of an ally.)

No, I spoke carelessly (probably since repeating every nuance over and over again eventually becomes tiresome).

My line of reasoning (from a design perspective) goes something like this:
1) the game is hard enough, and that Medicine is cheap enough, that it is entirely understandable that heroes stay put until their hp is back to max or near max.
2) ...but this means that the minigame of choosing downtime activities is meaningless. (For instance, what becomes of the Sorcerer's advantage in regaining Focus?)
3) ...it also makes it much harder to create a believable world when heroes regularly rest up for hours on end
4) ...because the encounter math pretty much prevents me from having monsters act intelligently by teaming up and falling back (encounters are already hard enough)

Sorry for not being more verbose but I've discussed this several times already.

 

[kenada]

Absolutely.

@Retreater I believe this is a case where if you use the GMing style "if you don't say you check for traps, you don't check for traps". In this case, foreshadowing is useful (if not essential). (Kenada is free to tell me I'm wrong though)

If you run games more like me, however, you will simply assume the lead character is actively detecting stuff to the best of his abilities, without anyone having to point that out. This means he gets his "spot traps" check automatically. It also means the players can be confident they're never "cheated out of a check".

It cuts down on all the "I poke it with a 10-feet stick" chatter. For some groups that chatter is core to their role-playing experience. For us, it takes away time from combat and socializing.

I think you’ve got the gist of it. I don’t think the “poke everything with a stick” style is particularly interesting either, which is why telegraphing hidden hazards or defining a logic to their placement is important.

 

[nevin]

More importantly: Gamesmastering traps usually is no problem.

Only here in PF2 have I encountered these problematic questions. Again, why are the rules so prescriptive? What is the value of this incredible rules minutae?

My conclusion is the same as with every other issue I'm having: The rules would have been objectively better if a truckload of crud were erased before publication.

Pathfinders niche is players that didn't like 3.0's no balance game theory. Everything in Pathfinder has always been that way. It's a game system that's primary focus is to make sure that players don't screw up the Tactical game by being "creative Players" . Thus things like All force effects effect everything except magic missile which only effects living creatures because heaven forbid a mage should activate a trap or destroy a potion vial in someones hand in combat. I've been playing pathfinder for awhile because it's what my friends want to play and I've discovered the game absolutely assumes all players are bad and will mess up the game, and that GM's aren't supposed to fudge anything.
Thus all the rules minutae and conflicting rules who's only purpose is to prevent creativity in the game that might bypass any encounter in the game because that's cheating.

 

[kenada]

I'm not sure I interpret the rules to give "minimum rank" this significance.

All that requirement does, AFAIK, is to ensure a trap check fails to detect the trap if it isn't met.

That’s fair. It’s a secret check, so I’d just not bother rolling it in that case, but we’re also playing online. In person, I’d probably want to roll a d20 to keep up appearances.

I have other issues with the PF2 implementation of trap detection disabling I find much more problematic. It concerns "non-traditional" traps, for just a single example:

Bloodthirsty Urge - Hazards - Archives of Nethys: Pathfinder 2nd Edition Database

An object haunted by the echoes of a vicious mind attempts to kill someone who comes near.

2e.aonprd.com

The rules have several examples of traps which you evidently can disable by making a mental check (in this case, Religion) rather than to take action with your fingers (Thievery).

How do I (the GM) know this? Because the hazard says so?

But how do the players know this?

I can't get the pieces to fit. First, the trap is hidden until detected. So it's not like the party hears ominous moaning or insane chatter.

Only if the Perception check is made do you get clued in there's a trap at all. What does this mean - that the ominous moaning is so low and subtle it's hard to hear?

And what does it mean for the example trap linked above? It says an object is "haunted by the echoes of a vicious mind". But it tells me nothing of how to present the trap to the players. Does it mean audible echoes? Or does it mean "a disturbance in the Force".

And okay, so the Rogue manages to percept the hazard. But she's not trained in Religion, so I'm assuming she knows nothing of the nature of the hazard. And if the Cleric rolled low on his Perception, he presumably has detected nothing, so how can he know Religion is involved?

How do we go from the "there's some kind of trap here" state, to the state where the Cleric realizes "this must be a spirit I can talk out of existence"?

I have absolutely no idea.

And even if you do realize there's a "spirit" what does that mean? How do you know you can exorcise the spirit just by making a check?! Are players expected to be so meta that they know which spirits that can be dispelled with a mere skill check, which spirits that require a greater ritual, and which spirits that must be bested in combat?

I can find no better way to impart the "roll Religion" knowledge than to... say "you can roll Religion to disable the trap".

Haunts in PF1 had this problem too. You were supposed to cast positive energy into them to neutralize them. How would PCs know that? It’s completely obtuse. In The Skinsaw Murders, there’s a mansion with a haunt. When I ran it for my group, I think my PCs just avoided that room because they had no idea what to do about it.

As you probably agree, this makes for extremely dull and flat roleplaying.

It exhibits the worst tendencies where "rollplayers"
...say "I roll an Intelligence check to figure out the puzzle" instead of, you know, actually engaging in the puzzle, figuring it yourself as a player.
...say "I roll Diplomacy to convince the King to let us pass" instead of, you know, actually roleplaying your character, making up arguments and telling the king (GM) yourself.
...say "I roll Wisdom to see through the lies of the Witch" (or worse, "I Detect Evil" and if I get a reading, I draw my sword") instead of, you know, making up your own mind whether to trust the little old lady or not.

Please tell me there is a better way to run traps Please tell me Paizo isn't so entrenched in their own rules system they take it for granted that gamesmasters just tell players the meta knowledge their characters need to know in order to take rational action.

More importantly: Gamesmastering traps usually is no problem.

Only here in PF2 have I encountered these problematic questions. Again, why are the rules so prescriptive? What is the value of this incredible rules minutae?

My conclusion is the same as with every other issue I'm having: The rules would have been objectively better if a truckload of crud were erased before publication.

I agree and disagree. The basic structure of hazards is good stuff. Having specifics on disabling them gives the GM tools for enabling players to find creative solutions to the hazards they encounter. That’s important for making hazards more interesting than just a series of checks.

Unfortunately, many of the example hazards in the CRB and GMG leave a lot to be desired. The best ones focus on the mechanisms rather than the mitigation efforts. I also can’t find any redeeming qualities to haunts, which I think would work better as the environmental effect of a ghost or spirit (like regional effects in 5e).

 

[Teemu]

Isn't Recall Knowledge meant for knowing how to disable a hazard?

In the Game Mastering section of the CRB it says (about Recall Knowledge), "For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed)."

 

[CapnZapp]

I think you’ve got the gist of it. I don’t think the “poke everything with a stick” style is particularly interesting either, which is why telegraphing hidden hazards or defining a logic to their placement is important.

Your reply ignores how I explicitly discuss another alternative, where telegraphing is not necessary

 

[CapnZapp]

Isn't Recall Knowledge meant for knowing how to disable a hazard?

In the Game Mastering section of the CRB it says (about Recall Knowledge), "For a check about a specific creature, trap, or other subject with a level, use a level-based DC (adjusting for rarity as needed)."

The thing is: a trap where the description makes the player understand how the character can disable it is much more satisfying than a trap where a successful check lets you know which other check to attempt.

In the first case, we're inside the character's mind and eyes. In the second case, we're looking at playing pieces at a map.

 

[Teemu]

The thing is: a trap where the description makes the player understand how the character can disable it is much more satisfying than a trap where a successful check lets you know which other check to attempt.

In the first case, we're inside the character's mind and eyes. In the second case, we're looking at playing pieces at a map.

Isn't that just a general personal preference gripe with regards to how PF2 handles information? Getting information is gated behind a rather elaborate process through Recall Knowledge, whereas some folks prefer to resolve it much quicker and without too much difficulty.

To me it looks like the rules already provide a way to give out information on how to disable a hazard, which is Recall Knowledge. Now, I get that PF2 Recall Knowledge can be convoluted (but then again, PF2 can be convoluted in general), and you can house rule that by making the checks not require actions and grant much more information per check, or even simply grant automatic knowledge based on proficiency rank for example.

 

[kenada]

Your reply ignores how I explicitly discuss another alternative, where telegraphing is not necessary

Yep.

I don’t like having everyone automatically roll every time they come to a door or chest or whatever, especially when those checks are usually secret (so I end being the one to roll them). It makes me feel like I’m playing the game for the PCs. That’s also something I don’t like, hence the “either”. I’d rather put in the work to make hazards engaging or otherwise just drop them.