Pathfinder 2E Is this a fair review of PF2?

[nevin]

If that's their decision, then so be it, but they should know that they're completely alienating any potential players who actually care about having a solid model for what's going on. That includes a good number of players from the AD&D era, who had figured this all out already.

"Amorphous" anything is the worst possible (lack of a) solution, from a modeling standpoint.

I think you are wrong. Hitpts have been an amorphous blob since 1e and the game has done fine. most dms either don't care or decide how it is and move on. Generally the more you specify and lock things down the more it hurts your game. When it's fuzzy DM decides and thing move on. Now what I really think is driving the whole 10 min rest thing is someone has convinced thier peers if make the rules more like world of warcraft it'll grow the base.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think you are wrong. Hitpts have been an amorphous blob since 1e and the game has done fine. most dms either don't care or decide how it is and move on. Generally the more you specify and lock things down the more it hurts your game. When it's fuzzy DM decides and thing move on.

Hit Points were codified well enough in earlier editions, that individual DMs were able to figure out some sort of consistent answer that worked. I know, because I was there. It wasn't perfect, by any means, but it made enough sense as to not trivialize the entire world model.

Fourth Edition took a radical shift in declaring that Hit Point damage definitely did not include any sort of physical injury, in spite of all the variables involved; and for whatever reason, that was the one thing from 4E that both 5E and PF2 integrated into their core rules.

You're right, when you say that most DMs don't care. I just question the design logic that led them to alienating all of the DMs who do care.

 

[nevin]

maybe they'd alienate more by pinning it down. there are other game systems that do and I don't know of one that's ever been as popular.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

maybe they'd alienate more by pinning it down. there are other game systems that do and I don't know of one that's ever been as popular.

They did alienate more than they needed to, by pinning it down inconsistently. They could have continued to welcome everyone, by sticking with the healing model from earlier editions.

 

[CapnZapp]

Nah, that ship sailed a long time ago. A very long time ago.

That is, the AD&D notion of gradually chipping away at your hit point total, with any given fight not being likely to require you to be at full health. Heck, even many AD&D fans played the game more aggressively than that. And thanks to wands of CLW, not even 3E had that in practice.

That said, 5E is probably your best bet if you want a contemporary edition of D&D that can work like D&D of old. It is far better equipped than PF2 in using nonstandard healing rates and variant healing rules if the aim is to recapture the older style of gaming.

PF2 is definitely not the game to use as a starting point, though. It is very focused on making each and every encounter individually challenging in isolation. And the "isolation" part means not making assumptions on previous attrition, so every encounter is simply calibrated for four characters at maximum resources. I would not recommend trying to rejig that into an AD&D-like experience.

 

[BluejayJunior]

According to Tim Kask (see the link here), hit points were never supposed to be actual physical damage, even at the earliest stages of DnD.

 

[Yardiff]

I've always preferred that Hit Point damage was a least a very small amount of physical damage because, to me, it makes more since with attacks at deal poison damage that you get at least scratched so the poison can enter your blood stream.

 

[Teemu]

Hp in PF2 kind of leans towards meat points as default because of bleed damage and stuff like drained. You could take bleed damage from at or near full hp, and there’s no other way to narrate that than straight up physical bleeding. There are creatures immune to bleeding because of physiology, so it’s not like “bleeding” is an abstract game term either.

 

[Ancalagon]

I found that after a battle, we would spend 40 minutes out of game on healing

Wait what? It took 40 minutes of table time to deal with healing?!?!? This should be a 5 minute activity - it can take 10 minutes because people waffle in my experience but 40?!?

I hope I simply misunderstood you there...

 

[nevin]

Wait what? It took 40 minutes of table time to deal with healing?!?!? This should be a 5 minute activity - it can take 10 minutes because people waffle in my experience but 40?!?

I hope I simply misunderstood you there...

I believe it. I've seen groups of detail oriented people spending 30 to 40 min a round playing pathfinder. I've played with a group where boss fights we're almost the whole night. Because the GM didn't make people make descisions quickly and every thing that happened had people looking stuff up in the book to make sure they made the most perfect optimized action. Pathfinder with a group of detail l oriented control freaks is like swimming through jello