Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[Acolyte of Zothique]

Last night I ran the initial session for Hellknight Hill and it had a few bumpy moments but it went pretty well.
I've been a big fan of the Adventure paths since they started coming out for PF and so I figured I'd go with this
book to start my group on Pathfinder 2nd Ed to see the balance of their encounters and the difficulties the writers think work well.

The book isn't written all that well and you can kind of tell the rules were still be decided while it was being
written and it feels rushed (ie. just like Horde of the Dragon Queen for D&D 5th Ed). Hopefully the path gets better as the you get deeper into the book series. My 3 players are all long term players of RPG's (all in their 40's) and they all really liked character creation and found it was fun. The 3 action economy definitely runs smoothly and they enjoyed it but you can tell it makes them think about their choices wisely. They used some social skills in the Tavern and were able to gather info well during that scene. The initiative runs pretty much like any initiative but the change to perception went ok and the rogue using stealth instead didn't really cause much confusion (basically he was in stealth mode and when an encounter started he stayed in stealth mode when everyone rolled perception and his stealth number is compared to the others perception number).

We have a wizard and cleric and both players enjoyed their spell selections and cantrips really have enhanced how good a caster can be (just like it did in D&D 5th Ed). The fighter had a run of bad luck and really had a hard time hitting his targets but he understands that sometimes it is just luck or bad luck. I'm thinking conditions are going to take a minute to get used to the new rules but I think after a couple more sessions it will all become second nature.

I'll keep you all updated as the game goes on.

Ah, someone who understands the intent behind this thread. Thank you for actually providing some actual real play experience. Muchly appreciated.

Very interested in how the wizard player feels as the game progresses.

 

[Kel Ardan]

So I ran our third game of Hellknight Hill and my players are really getting into how to use their three actions in different ways and are also planning strategies on how to use them together for when encounters occur (in character). To answer the question above, the wizard is really enjoying the system so far and realized he had to plan his spells out a little better, he also has used his social skill to help the party out. The Wizard and Cleric also realized that the spells they are used to using in other editions are not the same and had to go back to the drawing books per say to readjust what spells they can use and when.

Exploring mode is different but they fell in line dictating who is doing what pretty easily and the rules are easy to play but just takes a bit to know them all. They just got to level at the end of this session and I'll keep you in the loop on how they feel leveling is going and if they think that it advances them enough. Overall great third session in the books however I do have a rule I'd like to ask about that I want to know if we are interpreting it correctly.

If you role a natural 20 on a skill/ attack it automatically bumps the condition of said roll to the next stage (ie. a critical failure becomes a failure, a failure becomes a success, and a success becomes a critical success). Please let me know what your opinion on this is to make sure we are reading this correctly.

Thank you

 

[kenada]

If you role a natural 20 on a skill/ attack it automatically bumps the condition of said roll to the next stage (ie. a critical failure becomes a failure, a failure becomes a success, and a success becomes a critical success). Please let me know what your opinion on this is to make sure we are reading this correctly.

That’s a correct understanding. I think there is a place where it suggests otherwise for attacks, but that’s a mistake. Errata is due on the 30th, which should help clarify things (though AFAIK they won’t yet be updating the PDF with the changes).

 

[GrahamWills]

So I ran our third game of Hellknight Hill and my players are really getting into how to use their three actions in different ways and are also planning strategies on how to use them together for when encounters occur (in character). To answer the question above, the wizard is really enjoying the system so far ...

I have a half-orc sorcerer/cleric and one thing I have fun with in the three action economy is when I use two actions to cast a spell (most spells) I have a spare action to have fun with. I'll often try an intimidation check to frighten the opposition. I'm not sure why I enjoy it so much, but hitting some enemy with a ray of enfeeblement and then yelling at him to surrender or die with a pretty good chance of a mechanical effect is just ... fun.

 

[5atbu]

I have a player like that. I actually find it annoying, he can't seem to remember where on his sheet to look for the sword's attack bonus, although it is always in the same place. He knows this, but someone has to point it out to him.

They are players too

 

[kenada]

The CRB isn’t lying when it says severe encounters can go badly for the PCs if they don’t use good tactics.

Today’s session ended in a TPK. Reflecting on it, it was unnecessary but also the consequences of some bad decisions (and some bad luck). At the same time, it didn’t feel unfair that it happened. The one that ended my 5e campaign felt a lot worse for everyone.

I’m running a sandbox game, so I use wandering monster tables in my dungeons. The PCs were exploring a Dragon Shrine they’d found (I was using this map, just to convey a sense of scale). The first encounter my tables generated was a giant gecko. The monk decided to wrestle it, but it eventually got free and ran away. That’s not the TPK part, though it sets the stage.

Later, they find that gecko and another one near the entrance to the Shrine. They scare the geckos off, and then continue exploring. A short time later, they find the first gecko melting while the other stands back and hisses at the gray ooze that’s killing the other gecko.

The gray ooze is level 3 creature I converted using a mix of mechanics from the oozes in the Bestiary to make something that felt like the one in PF1 (and checked against the monster creation guidelines Paizo released recently). The PCs have dealt with them before effectively using hit and run tactics. Today, they decided it was time to slug it out with a creature that destroys your equipment and can grab and melt you to death (as they saw happening to the gecko).

Getting back to my opening statement, according to the CRB, a severe-threat encounter is one where bad luck or poor tactics can turn the encounter against hte PCs. Yes. We only had three PCs today, so a single level 3 creatures should be a moderate- to severe-threat encounter for them. The fight started out okay, but it went completely out of control when one of the PCs split the ooze and then got one-shotted with a max damage crit by the second ooze. Crits are brutal.

If anything, that’s the only thing that drew any consternation. I think everyone’s used to PF1 or 5e where crits are much more rare. The ooze could crit the alchemist on a 12 because the alchemist’s AC was terrible (only 13). Having a low AC is extra bad because you not only get hit more often, but you get crit more often (and crits hurt).

Since the campaign is designed around a rotating cast of characters, we rolled up new ones at the end. We’ll figure out next time whether they’re going to go find out what happened to the first group or just strike out exploring in a different direction.

 

[dave2008]

Reading these play report has made me think I really like the PF2e crit rules from a design perspective (I can see a ton of ways to use the concept), but not nearly as much from a play perspective (except that is for the terribly lethal DM that hides inside me). They just seem to brutal for what my players want, but I do really love the design space they provide.

Hmm, now that I think of it, the solution might be to use traditional crits in general, and the +10 version for special features and/or monsters.

 

[kenada]

I like the changes PF2 made to crits. They make it worthwhile to continue improving your attack bonus, and they make higher level enemies feel dangerous. Having regularly spiky damage (along with the wounded condition) also helps discourage PCs from trying to ride lower HP instead of healing in battle.

Reflecting back, I think the real problem is death from massive damage. Specifically, only lower level characters are vulnerable to it. Unless you’ve got terrible Con and never improve it, by 3rd level, you should have enough HP that even a level+4 creature can’t do enough damage in a single hit to kill you (and that’s assuming a creature doing extreme damage per the benchmarks in the creature building rules).

I’m thinking of dropping the massive damage rule. I don’t like that it becomes obsolete nor that it seems to disproportionately affect lower level characters.

 

[CapnZapp]

I just realized we have two experience threads. Just made a post in the other. Oh well.

 

[kenada]

I just realized we have two experience threads. Just made a post in the other. Oh well.

I’m treating this as play experiences and the other as GMing experiences. They’re similar but not entirely overlapping.