Pathfinder 2E How is PF2E prep and GMing?

[Reynard]

What aspects of PF2E rules have an impact on "traditional" dungeon exploration? Is it fun and viable to run a dungeon similar in size and complexity to the Sunless Citadel in PF2E?

 

[CapnZapp]

It looks like Continual recovery is only a 2nd level feat so I presume it is pretty common to have. I mean, it is an interesting choice: it appears hit points are a tactical resource rather than a strategic resource in PF2E, and spells per day, rage, etc are more strategic resources. Does that mean classes like fighters and rogues don't have to deal with strategic resource management at all?

Bingo

(Actually that's not the whole picture since even a fighter can get hold of a thingamagog that says "once a day")

 

[CapnZapp]

What does that mean from a practical gameplay standpoint as it relates to "traditional" d20 D&D playstyle?

Actually I'd say the only thing that's worth mentioning is the rulebook's complete lack of awareness this might be an issue.

If adventure pacing had been properly discussed (or even discussed at all) this thread didn't have to exist.

FOr example, 5E makes strategic healing pretty easy but you still have to worry about the total expenditure of resources over the course of the "day" between long rests. Combined with the short rest mechanic and lots of at will cantrips etc, 5E extends the 15 minute adventuring day to a solid 45 minutes or so. Does PF2E have a 15 minute adventuring day equivalent?

Yes and no.

No, because it isn't 15 minutes. More likely a couple of hours: you would rest for 10, 20 or 60 minutes or whatever after every encounter (unless prevented), and you can obviously handle several encounters in a day.

Yes, because whatever the exact number of minutes is, is conceptually far closer to minutes than days. That is, the importance on days wane when only casters care. (As heroes level up I expect this importance to increase)

 

[CapnZapp]

Those aren't strategic -- i.e. long term -- resources. They are immediate tactical choices.

I guess he should have started by saying "no", before going on with his explanation.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think I and my group are going to have learn different methods/styles of play if that is the case. We almost never have any of those classes. The only one I have seen in the last 12 years is a druid. I am interested (as long as I can play a rogue), but not sure I can get my group in (of course I would be DMing then).

PF2 is unapologetically classical in the sense that a combat healer is very very valuable.

5E, as you all know, deliberately nerfed healing precisely to make a combat healer much more optional.

 

[CapnZapp]

My experience differs.

Players have been, after an encounter, have been using a basic procedure of using focus pool-based healing options, then refocusing while Treat Wounds is done, and then debating if the time cost of another round of Treat Wounds is worth the risk - and usually deciding either to spend resource-based healing instead of additional time, or retreating to safety for actual rest, because those two options provide them better chance of not being confronted by an encounter while not prepared and ending up dead as a result.

I should say that's how we started out too.

But we're running an official AP that's at times brutally hard. At these times, more than half of the party has ended encounters at less than half hit points. Since the next encounter might be just as hard, the only way they would go deeper into the dungeon was if allowed to heal up fully, which (after much clutter, choice anxiety and calculations) translates to "half an hour to two hours later".

The sandbox option to throw in a couple of low-level wandering critters to make the party get a move on never felt appropriate - I couldn't in my heart punish them for getting smashed up by brutally hard encounters, could I?

Point here though, was the idea "if they end up fully healed anyway, why not just cut out the admin and say BAM short rest means full health no clutter needed".

 

[CapnZapp]

What aspects of PF2E rules have an impact on "traditional" dungeon exploration? Is it fun and viable to run a dungeon similar in size and complexity to the Sunless Citadel in PF2E?

Maybe a topic of its own thread?

 

[Reynard]

Maybe a topic of its own thread?

No. This is a thread I started to talk about running PF2E from the perspective of a 3.x, PF1 and 5E GM and I asked the question. It was a couple of you that turned it into an argument about healing.

 

[Campbell]

@Reynard

I find PF2 to be a really solid dungeon crawler. It stands out amongst modern versions of the game.

Exploration mode is basically a modern take on the 10 minute turn. This makes it compatible with wandering monster checks and other old school techniques built on turns.

Hazards are well detailed and the guidance on building them in the GMG.

Monster designs are more classical compared to other versions of D&D. Many feel like puzzles or traps.

There are some pretty decent hexcrawl mechanics in the GMG.

One of my short runs was an adaptation of Tower of the Black Pearl (Dungeon Crawl Classics).

 

[dave2008]

Monster designs are more classical compared to other versions of D&D. Many feel like puzzles or traps.

I love this idea as a designer, but I've always disliked in actual play.