Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8114481" data-attributes="member: 70468">I would have agreed with you a few weeks ago, but I’m not convinced of that now (see: <a href="http://knowdirectionpodcast.com/2020/09/know-direction-233-pathfinder-2e-hacks-and-house-rules/" target="_blank">Know Direction #233</a> at <a href="https://overcast.fm/+K5LChSOo/17:59" target="_blank">around the 18m mark</a>). I think they made a mistake. Specifically, I think the playtest didn’t adequately account for survivorship bias.What I recall at the time is that their primary focus was on the playtest adventure they’d released. It was designed to stress different parts of the system. If your focus is on a specific stress test, then you’re going to be limiting your feedback to groups most likely to put up with doing that kind of content, who I’d posit are likely also the kinds of groups who will really push a system.The end result is a game that by default is tuned for groups that are really tactically savvy and are inclined towards system mastery. That’s not good because it means the official adventures are going to scare people away from the system for being too hard.Look at the GMG’s <a href="http://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=950" target="_blank">dungeon crawl recipe</a>: 6 moderate and 6 severe encounters (in addition to 2 trivial and 4 low). If I followed that recipe, my PCs would have died repeatedly in the first dungeon. We ought to be the ideal audience (former PF1 group that shifted 5e somewhat begrudgingly), but my players were never hardcore builders or tacticians. We had one TPK early in my PF2 campaign, and I got some static for that. Multiple TPKs would have prompted us to find a different game.Fortunately, I think they can course correct. The game’s math does work, so you just need to recalibrate it around a different benchmark. I hope they include something in the errata and adjust their adventures going forward.</blockquote>

Verification