Pathfinder 2E Healing issues, and multiclassing in 2e?

[Thomas Shey]

For whatever it's worth, I don't agree with his take. The math of the game is tight enough that as a GM, you can easily run a game that isn't reliant on ideal composition without too much trouble. This page on Archives of Nethys gives an overview of how to balance an encounter.

Ideal, no. But if you aren't paying attention to group composition when choosing characters, there's no particular reason to assume someone will be better about it in-play, and I think that's deadly in the system unless the GM corrects for it.

 

[Retreater]

You know, every time I start to think I might want to give PF2 another try (currently the Tian Xia stuff coming out next year piqued my interest), something like this comes along and offers me a sharp correction.

I'm sorry if I came across as a bad ambassador for the game. I did post that a GM will have to either adjust to account for players unable to work as a team OR encourage them to do so. I may have come down too hard on the "ferocious encouragement" side.
But you should definitely take a look at the Tian Xia book. The setting and lore should be helpful regardless of the system of fantasy RPG you're playing.

 

[Andvari]

While a druid isn't quite able to optimize toward healing as a cleric, its capable of holding up that pole of support okay.

The group I'm GMing (level 5 currently) are doing quite well with a Druid who took a few Medicine feats, memorizes several heals each day and has a staff of healing.

The rest of the party are Champion, Ranger, Rogue and Witch.

They've had 2 deaths in total, neither which can be blamed on the druid's healing. The first happened when they split up and each ran into separate hostile monster groups. The second was during a battle against a vampire count and his minions. They had spent 2 sessions recovering a magic item designed to defeat the vampire. But the PC carrying the magic item decided for some (unknown to me) RP reason to not use it until they'd pretty much already lost the battle, and another PC got killed during their escape attempt.

 

[billd91]

If you don't want a team-focused game, its absolutely not where you want to go. That's just the reality; its based around mutual support and if you have a group where a significant portion of the characters are all doing their own thing without any care in that direction--well, let's just say the GM better get used to low-balling the encounter types.

I don't mind a game that encourages team work - but, for my money, there are games that have taken it way too far.

 

[billd91]

I'm sorry if I came across as a bad ambassador for the game. I did post that a GM will have to either adjust to account for players unable to work as a team OR encourage them to do so. I may have come down too hard on the "ferocious encouragement" side.
But you should definitely take a look at the Tian Xia book. The setting and lore should be helpful regardless of the system of fantasy RPG you're playing.

Don't sweat it. I already bounced off PF2 fairly hard after trying it a bit in Pathfinder Society. I didn't much like the design direction they took pushing the level-heavy impact on the math. It was terribly disappointing after shifting to PF1 instead of 4e, but I'm much happier with 5e.
That said, I have still checked out a few PF2 materials because of the adventure plot lines and setup rather than rules, so I may do the same with the Tian Xia stuff.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The group I'm GMing (level 5 currently) are doing quite well with a Druid who took a few Medicine feats, memorizes several heals each day and has a staff of healing.

The rest of the party are Champion, Ranger, Rogue and Witch.

They've had 2 deaths in total, neither which can be blamed on the druid's healing. The first happened when they split up and each ran into separate hostile monster groups. The second was during a battle against a vampire count and his minions. They had spent 2 sessions recovering a magic item designed to defeat the vampire. But the PC carrying the magic item decided for some (unknown to me) RP reason to not use it until they'd pretty much already lost the battle, and another PC got killed during their escape attempt.

Honestly, my observation has been that the general mechanics of death in PF2e make it proportionately more likely to lose a whole party than individual characters. And I'm not surprised the druid covered the ground; unless the GM (or the AP they're using) is doing too many up-level encounters, you don't have to have an optimized healing machine to cover the ground; there are numerous options that can make it work. You just have to have something a bit beyond a couple people taking Medicine or expecting a Champion to do the work by themself.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't mind a game that encourages team work - but, for my money, there are games that have taken it way too far.

That's the gig, though; PF2e doesn't encourage teamwork; it essentially demands it if played with the default difficulties. You can make it work going into it by dialing back encounter difficulties, but you have to do that. I'd say 90% of the failure states in people playing PF2e I've heard have been people with players who tried to mostly just do their own thing in battles (though admittedly, also often kind of ignoring tactics completely over just bulling ahead--even if you're only doing your own thing if your fighter goes through every encounter just doing attack/attack/attack as his three actions, that's probably not going to go well).

Its one of those things I think is an unavoidable decision; if you want your game to have tactical choices that actually matter on a regular basis, you have to either decide you're going to ignore that (at which point the game will be too easy for too many people in many cases) or factor it in (in which case people not using tactics will find it too hard in too many cases). The alternative is not to make tactics matter all that much, and PF2e is not that game.

 

[Kichwas]

I don't know what to do about a TPK. I asked them what they wanted to do about character death and said they shouldn't be able to die unless it makes story sense, or they mess up badly.

That's called playing Fantasy Hero, Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Theatrix. Maybe not even Fantasy Hero...

The idea that a PC can only die for story reasons is just NOT something that has ever been a part of D&D or any tRPG that descends out of it except "maybe" Mutants and Masterminds. But even that is a big maybe.

 

[Kichwas]

Pathfinder 2e is a team game - probably even more so than most other TTRPGs. If the player isn't able to learn the character and be able to start pulling its weight for the team, it's time to tell your player "hey, look, you're being a little selfish here. Your character voice, backstory, etc., are coming at the cost of the party's chance of survival."

I'm really baffled at the people that do not like this point.

tRPGs have always been a team effort. When you have two PCs in conflict it's long been accepted advice that this is an extremely bad idea unless the players worked it out ahead of time OUTSIDE of the game to make sure the plot was fun for both and NOT a disruption to the team efforts.

That idea of being at a roleplay table where one or more players is NOT working towards the team objectives is a common feature on various 'RPG Horror Story' discussions. Right next to that Incel creep that brings in weird non-consensual 'NSFW' stuff either in character or out.
- Those are basically 2 of the 4 greatest hits of RPG horror stories. Number 3 and 4 being the 'DM NPC' or 'Main Character' syndrome.

Even if I was GMing a game of Paranoia - where the PCs often go nuts and kill each other as a part of that game's theme; if I had a player that didn't want to be a team player, I'd have one less player at the end of that session, if not sooner...

 

[Kichwas]

While a druid isn't quite able to optimize toward healing as a cleric, its capable of holding up that pole of support okay.

Perhaps. But of all the casters out there, the Druid suffers the most for it.

You have to give up all of your max level spell slots to Heal. Maybe also several lower level slots as well. And your Goodberry order spell is subject to GM whim unless you GM allows you to pick berries off of your familiar.

Sorcerer, Oracle, even Alchemist can get better paths to healing - though 'better' here is very minor.

The problem with a non-Cleric healer is that they end up become almost ONLY a healer. You end up left with your cantrips and... maybe an animal companion or crossbow or something.

For a player, it's going to suck. Being the person who at level 18 is still spamming Electric Arc as their only spell gets old.

 

[Thomas Shey]

That's called playing Fantasy Hero, Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Theatrix. Maybe not even Fantasy Hero...

Only reason you routinely avoid dying in fights in FH is the core system is biased to having anyone in armor be knocked out sooner than they die, even with killing attacks.

The idea that a PC can only die for story reasons is just NOT something that has ever been a part of D&D or any tRPG that descends out of it except "maybe" Mutants and Masterminds. But even that is a big maybe.

Its certainly true of M&M3e. There's no mechanical way to die except by agreement. But then M&M has swung far afield from normal D&D derivatives.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Perhaps. But of all the casters out there, the Druid suffers the most for it.

You have to give up all of your max level spell slots to Heal. Maybe also several lower level slots as well. And your Goodberry order spell is subject to GM whim unless you GM allows you to pick berries off of your familiar.

Sorcerer, Oracle, even Alchemist can get better paths to healing - though 'better' here is very minor.

I'm not sure I buy that the Divine Sorcerer is actually better off here, given their limited number of known spells. And until recently the Chirgeon Alechemist was, well, bad. Oracles you may have an argument for.

The problem with a non-Cleric healer is that they end up become almost ONLY a healer. You end up left with your cantrips and... maybe an animal companion or crossbow or something.

It depends quite how much healing you find tolerable. I'd say 90% of the time the group I'm with gets by after combat just off of Medicine and a couple feats. So you only need to prop up characters with in-combat healing, and that's only really necessary with up-level encounters usually. Heck, you don't even necessarily need magic for that if one or more characters is willing to invest in Battlefield Medicine.

 

[Andvari]

That's called playing Fantasy Hero, Big Eyes Small Mouth, or Theatrix. Maybe not even Fantasy Hero...

The idea that a PC can only die for story reasons is just NOT something that has ever been a part of D&D or any tRPG that descends out of it except "maybe" Mutants and Masterminds. But even that is a big maybe.

I see the story as what happens during the game, rather than something I've already decided beforehand. So the story becomes that the PC dies in that battle if the dice was against them, they did something stupid, or whatever. And then you weave the story for the player's new PC into that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see the story as what happens during the game, rather than something I've already decided beforehand. So the story becomes that the PC dies in that battle if the dice was against them, they did something stupid, or whatever. And then you weave the story for the player's new PC into that.

Yeah, but there are people who don't want to deal with that. Not that that's a particularly likely risk with PF2e unless things have gone really pear-shaped.

 

[Lojaan]

I think the issue here isn't healing. The issue is the encounter - putting a whole lot of creatures that poison against a party without any reliable way of dealing with poison is going to cause problems. Same in 5e as PF2.

Sure, long term there may also be issues but again that is the same as 5e - play without a healer and you will have trouble unless the GM specifically designs the world around that being ok (easier encounters, healing potions everywhere etc...).

If your inventor bumps up their medicine skill and takes medicine feats you'll be fine.

Also, just take it easy on yourself. You're learning a new system. It's going to take a while. Maybe set some ground rules with your players where you can 'do over' or 'retcon' sessions or encounters while you are all learning. Or start an alternate "expendable" party that everyone practices with so it doesn't matter if they all TPK. And they get to try out different classes etc...

I also want to say that the only problem here is that you thought it would be an easy encounter and it turned out to be almost deadly. The actual experience sounds thrilling! Everyone gathered around the rogue, trying to keep them alive, the inventors checks failing ("damnit I can't find a vein!"), the champion crit healing to bring them back from the brink of death... Sounds like a brilliant session to me.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, one thing kind of needs to be said here: While the PF2e encounter system actually works (unlike the D&D3e/PF1e one, or, from what I hear, the D&D5e one), there are still going to be cases where the specific composition of an encounter, especially with an off-the-beaten path PC group, is particularly effective or ineffective. As an example fast moving opponents can be a serious problem for a party that is light on tanks (i.e. no Champion, Fighter, Barbarian or the like) because its hard for low hit point targets to get swarmed (AC is less of an issue in PF2e because the gap between top and bottom isn't usually strong).

 

[Dalamar]

This is quite a stream of unlucky roles, and perhaps as the DM I shouldn't have had them fight something with poison (they rolled a 4 on d20 to see what they would fight, and 6 -1 CR compys seemed merciful based on that)

I'm coming in a bit late, but I'll add that six compsognathus isn't exactly an easy fight for the party. Based on the encounter-building rules, as creatures of the party's level -2, they're each worth 20 XP, so six of them adds up to 120 XP, making this encounter roughly halfway between moderate (100 XP for a party of five) and severe (150 XP for a party of five).

The definitions of encounter difficulties tell us that a moderate encounter is "a serious challenge to the characters, though unlikely to overpower them completely. Characters usually need to use sound tactics and manage their resources wisely to come out of a moderate-threat encounter ready to continue on and face a harder challenge without resting", while a 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."

To me, something between these two descriptions sounds like exactly what you had, compounded by bad luck.