Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bert1001 fka bert1000" data-source="post: 8526889" data-attributes="member: 7029588">SoT is better but I think they are still a little trapped in prior addition thinking.&nbsp;&nbsp; SoT tends to have 3 types of set ups as far as I can tell:1) non combat situations where you get some xp but often just 1 combat worth.&nbsp; These are fairly frequent but you could easily just up the XP and cut other combat down depending on the story.&nbsp; There shouldn't really be any need to &quot;fill the XP budget&quot; with combat encounters.&nbsp; &nbsp;&nbsp; Just use non combat and story awards to make up the difference.2) set piece fights which unfortunately mostly tend to be low stakes &quot;helping&quot; quests or obstacles on the way to something else, for instance while traveling.&nbsp;&nbsp; These are often 1 or 2 per day situations.3) smaller 5-6 room &quot;dungeons&quot; of various types -- cavern, mansion, prison, ruins, abandoned temple, etc.&nbsp;&nbsp; The dungeons still seem to contain a decent amount of Level +3/4 encounters given you are expected to go through all 5-6-7 encounters in 1 day but at least they all aren't that anymore.&nbsp;&nbsp; Almost all the &quot;plot movement&quot; seems associated with these small dungeons.What they haven't done much of yet that I've seen is the very dynamic big set piece combat integral to the plot bracketed by non combat investigation / research / travel / etc. that significantly moves the plot.&nbsp;&nbsp; As with 4e, PF2e doesn't rely as much on the resource attrition model so this should fit well with PF2e.Great examples are some/most of the Zeitgeist modules.I think they would also be great for PF2e and should be used alongside non combat and small Dungeon (and window dressing encounters if wanted).&nbsp; Personally, I would appreciate fewer well designed set pieces with large maps, interesting terrain, custom monsters, objectives other than kill everyone, etc.&nbsp; &nbsp; rather than the many &quot;small map with generic monster&quot; encounters that SoT and Quest for the Frozen Flame part 1 have.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bert1001 fka bert1000, post: 8526889, member: 7029588"] SoT is better but I think they are still a little trapped in prior addition thinking. SoT tends to have 3 types of set ups as far as I can tell: 1) non combat situations where you get some xp but often just 1 combat worth. These are fairly frequent but you could easily just up the XP and cut other combat down depending on the story. There shouldn't really be any need to "fill the XP budget" with combat encounters. Just use non combat and story awards to make up the difference. 2) set piece fights which unfortunately mostly tend to be low stakes "helping" quests or obstacles on the way to something else, for instance while traveling. These are often 1 or 2 per day situations. 3) smaller 5-6 room "dungeons" of various types -- cavern, mansion, prison, ruins, abandoned temple, etc. The dungeons still seem to contain a decent amount of Level +3/4 encounters given you are expected to go through all 5-6-7 encounters in 1 day but at least they all aren't that anymore. Almost all the "plot movement" seems associated with these small dungeons. What they haven't done much of yet that I've seen is the very dynamic big set piece combat integral to the plot bracketed by non combat investigation / research / travel / etc. that significantly moves the plot. As with 4e, PF2e doesn't rely as much on the resource attrition model so this should fit well with PF2e. Great examples are some/most of the Zeitgeist modules. I think they would also be great for PF2e and should be used alongside non combat and small Dungeon (and window dressing encounters if wanted). Personally, I would appreciate fewer well designed set pieces with large maps, interesting terrain, custom monsters, objectives other than kill everyone, etc. rather than the many "small map with generic monster" encounters that SoT and Quest for the Frozen Flame part 1 have. [/QUOTE]

Verification