Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2E - does it play better than it looks at first glance + guides/resources for new DMs

[Staffan]

Healing/rest is another aspect that is a bit different in PF2. You still have the cleric/druid/bard dynamic, but any character can take a medicine or healer feat. Fights expect players at full health in PF2 and the mini game around healing can be a major headache. Its not uncommon for players asking how many 10 min breaks they can take. I tend to just handwave it if the players can rest for 10-30 min without worry, they just heal up (assuming they have the spells and abilities to do so).

To elaborate on this: one of the uses of the Medicine skill is to Treat Wounds. At the basic level this is a DC 15 check that takes 10 minutes, heals 2d8 hp and removes the Wounded condition, and can't be repeated on the same character for 60 minutes. If your Medicine proficiency is higher than Trained, you can make progressively harder checks that heal a lot more. There are also some skill feats that improve this, notably Continual Recovery which removes the 60 minute cooldown, and Ward Medic which lets you Treat the Wounds of two or more characters simultaneously. Both these skill feats require you to be an Expert in the skill, which you normally can't be until 3rd level, so unless you push really hard you won't get both until 6th level (Expert at 3rd, one feat at 4th, the other at 6th). There are ways to get them faster, but that requires being a skill monkey class (Rogue or Investigator) or sinking serious resources into it.

Treat Wounds is really nice, and makes it so you can expect to start every encounter at or near max hp, assuming there's no time strong time pressure. But it does require someone in the party to be a medic, and likely max out Medicine and getting at least one skill feat. But once you get there, you don't have to worry about hp attrition at all anymore. It's sort of like 4e short rest healing, except with infinite healing surges. In this model, healing spells (heal and the occult version soothe) are more for emergency healing – and given the amount they heal, they're pretty good at that. A top-level heal will likely heal a front-liner for about 50% of their max hp.

I've considered using the Stamina optional rule for my next campaign (or possibly implementing it if I go on with Extinction Curse). What it does is that it essentially splits hp into two halves (more or less): hit points and stamina. Hit points work the same, except that your stamina "shields" them – damage first comes off your stamina, and only when you're out of that you start losing hit points. You also have a number of Resolve points equal to your primary stat bonus, and you can spend 10 minutes and a resolve point to "take a breather" which restores all your stamina.

The effect of this is that you can get on pretty well without Treat Wounds, or at least without pushing it hard (since it only applies to the lower half of your hp anyway), but on the other hand there's a secondary resource that limits your daily non-magic healing.

 

[!DWolf]

As much as I am loving running Abomination Vaults (see me gushing about it in the “I Feel at Peace” thread), it is a massive full scale dungeon delve that will take over a hundred hours to complete (based on my calculations it will take our group at least 30 four hour sessions) and is potentially very deadly for groups that don’t have the basics of pf2e tactics down. If you just want to get your feet wet and try out the system I would recommend either the Beginner’s Box adventure (Menace under Otari) or Troubles in Otari over Abomination Vaults.

Menace under Otari is specifically designed to teach people how to play. It takes the characters to second level and, if you want to play Abomination Vaults afterwords, it is easy to transition into since it takes place in the same location.

Troubles in Otari are three separate beginners friendly low-level scenarios (2-4) linked to the town of Otari intended to be run after Menace in Otari. If you do want to try Abomination Vaults they are easy to run as side quests.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Multi-Attack Penalty is meant to discourage players from just standing around and attacking. My players tended to do that anyway, but that’s the idea. You should want to be doing other, more effective things with your actions than fishing for a crit on your third attack (unless your class is designed around that like the flurry ranger).

This latter bares repeating. Unless you're a specific build (some agile weapon builds) there's almost always a better thing to do for someone (even if only moving--backing away after attacking isn't actually a bad idea against a lot of opponents, since AoOs are less common, and it can rob an opponent of some special options). Just standing around swinging is supposed to be--and usually is--a mistake.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have heard lots of stories like this from Age of Ashes. If there's any bit of advice I can give for what to run as a PF2e GM, it's "don't run Age of Ashes."

Its actually a AP with some considerable fun in it, but it seriously underestimates how tough it is; the campaign I'm in worked in part because we're very on our game most of the time, and in part because (though there's only four of us) because we're all playing hybrids. And even there a couple of encounters were pretty brusk.

 

[Staffan]

Its actually a AP with some considerable fun in it, but it seriously underestimates how tough it is; the campaign I'm in worked in part because we're very on our game most of the time, and in part because (though there's only four of us) because we're all playing hybrids. And even there a couple of encounters were pretty brusk.

I think a lot of its rep comes from a very tough fight late in the first book, when the PCs don't really have the resilience needed to absorb a high-level encounter – IIRC, we were level 3 against a CR 7 creature, which is particularly rough because of both proficiency increases you get at level 5-7 and striking weapons you normally get at level 4. Not all level differentials are the same, even if they are the same size. That's the only fight we've had where we felt completely outmatched – there have certainly been tough ones later , but not to the same degree (at least through book 3 which is where we are now).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think a lot of its rep comes from a very tough fight late in the first book, when the PCs don't really have the resilience needed to absorb a high-level encounter – IIRC, we were level 3 against a CR 7 creature, which is particularly rough because of both proficiency increases you get at level 5-7 and striking weapons you normally get at level 4. Not all level differentials are the same, even if they are the same size. That's the only fight we've had where we felt completely outmatched – there have certainly been tough ones later , but not to the same degree (at least through book 3 which is where we are now).

If its the one I'm thinking of, its the one (and as far as I recall, only one) where my Redeemer/Bard got flattened.

 

[president16us]

My Experience
This all sounds pretty alright on it's own without the context of actual play. Having run the game a bunch, it works out better than it sounds. I run the game in 3 hour sessions and each one averages 5 combats with lots of room for exploration or roleplaying, depending on the adventure. I run it on Foundry, and the pace of combat is incredibly brisk. Turns typically take a minute or less per player because the system has a way to automatically compare roll results against DCs, letting the player simply declare what they're gonna do, roll it, and have a resolution automatically presented. Every single spell, item, feat, ability in the game is in Foundry, so the speed of information retrieval is almost instantaneous. Very little bogs us down, the only thing that will do it sometimes is waiting a minute to load a new area for every player. From everything I had read from the game, speed of play this insanely fast is not something I was expecting. For comparison, I run 5e for a local game store and in the same span of time we're lucky to do 2 combats per session. I am struggling to go back to 5e, I have become accustom to PF2e's new normal of game speed.

I'm really interested in JThursby and payn's comments on using Foundry for PF 2e. I'm thinking of starting a small campaign and I'm wondering if Foundry works well as a GM's aid for applying conditions, tracking all the bonuses, etc. for in-person play, and not using it as a map and tactical combat tracker. In other words, I don't think all the players want to have to look at a video screen, but I wouldn't mind using it as a GM tool. Thanks for any helpful advice.

 

[Retreater]

I'm really interested in JThursby and payn's comments on using Foundry for PF 2e. I'm thinking of starting a small campaign and I'm wondering if Foundry works well as a GM's aid for applying conditions, tracking all the bonuses, etc. for in-person play, and not using it as a map and tactical combat tracker. In other words, I don't think all the players want to have to look at a video screen, but I wouldn't mind using it as a GM tool. Thanks for any helpful advice.

I know you didn't ask me specifically, but I've got around 100 hours logged into Foundry for PF2e.
So I think Foundry is a phenomenal tool for PF2e, but you're going to get more use out of it as a VTT than a GM's aid.
For example, if you're not using it as a tactical combat tracker it's not going to track durations of conditions, prompt you to roll saves against ongoing conditions, automatically roll the damage from persistent effects, etc.
If you want to apply conditions/effects directly to a character sheet, you're going to have to go through several more steps (looking up the condition in the compendium pack and dragging it onto the sheet) - whereas if you were using a token on the map, it's a right click on the token then selecting the condition graphic from a pop-up window.
If your players are going to roll from the character sheets, it can math out the multi-attack penalty. Also, if they roll from the character sheet it will automatically apply the effects of conditions (such as Frightened).
In my opinion, as a GM's aid it will be more of a hindrance than a help. I'd recommend getting the Condition Cards from Paizo and pass them around your physical table and put them on the character sheet as a reminder to apply the condition. Or make a note on the character sheet and erase it when it's no longer applicable. This is what I'm going to do when I return to in-person play next month.
Hope this helps, but if you want more information, I'll be happy to be of assistance.

 

[payn]

I'm really interested in JThursby and payn's comments on using Foundry for PF 2e. I'm thinking of starting a small campaign and I'm wondering if Foundry works well as a GM's aid for applying conditions, tracking all the bonuses, etc. for in-person play, and not using it as a map and tactical combat tracker. In other words, I don't think all the players want to have to look at a video screen, but I wouldn't mind using it as a GM tool. Thanks for any helpful advice.

I pretty much second what Retreater said. If all you want to do is track PC/NPC info then Foundry is probably not that great of a tool If you are doing face to face gaming. I would combine the Paizo combat tracker with the condition cards for F2F.

Otherwise, using Foundry to run everything is awesome. Character sheets are drag and drop, the auto roller figures out everything for you. Conditions are a button click to apply. Its super slick.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Actually from my experience the Hero Lab Online functionality sounds a bit better here (though it doesn't directly take care of rolls and such, but it at least automatically applies the mechanical effects of conditions once you apply them--whether someone would consider how you apply them easy is in the eye of the beholder).

 

[JThursby]

I'm really interested in JThursby and payn's comments on using Foundry for PF 2e. I'm thinking of starting a small campaign and I'm wondering if Foundry works well as a GM's aid for applying conditions, tracking all the bonuses, etc. for in-person play, and not using it as a map and tactical combat tracker. In other words, I don't think all the players want to have to look at a video screen, but I wouldn't mind using it as a GM tool. Thanks for any helpful advice.

If you want to use Foundry in that way I recommend simply having the PCs, NPCs and Hazards as tokens on a single, large landing page. From there it is fairly easy to apply conditions, feat and spell effects, monster ability effects, etc. Since all official content is already included in the system this should require no prep on your part aside from anything you've home brewed. This should make the monster turns faster and easier to run.

If you can splurge I would whole heartily recommend using a screen-table, or more economically just a video screen on top of a table. It's how I prefer to run my professional in-person games and it simplifies my prep and combat tracking. Being able to have the entirety of a level of Abomination Vaults or Dungeon of the Mad Mage on display in person is immensely satisfying, and pretty useful for the party to see where they've been and where they can go. You can still use miniatures and whatnot, they can just be placed on top of where the digital tokens are.

The thing about VTTs in person I see the most push back on is digital dice rolling. There's an easy solution; don't roll the dice digitally, just use the VTT to keep track of the numbers. I personally love having the click-and-resolve simplicity built into the system, but it's entirely optional depending on how you implement Foundry as a GM tool. There's also a compromise to be had in using the Dice So Nice module to simulate 3D dice, complete with the click-clack sound they make.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Also, are there any good resources for getting started with PF2E (not like, getting started with RPGs, just PF2E specifically), like particularly those reminding me of key differences between 3E/PF1, 5E, and PF2 in terms of rules that might get overlooked or misremembered?

It plays better than it looks IMO.

For instance, it's hard to see how the 3 action economy incentivizes things like finding something to do with your third action other than attack -- for example demoralize or bon mot, but also something as simple as moving away after attacking so that a monster needs to spend 1-2 actions moving toward you vs. using it's very powerful 3 action attack.

It looks like there are so many feats and options but 1) there really isn't at each level and decision point, 2) feats generally broaden options rather than add power so not as much issue with 'optimal' feats.

Following on that, it's not obvious with a first read that PF2e is mostly a game of trying to get in scene tactical advantages vs. pre-scene character building. Which is direct follow on to +1s and -1s are actually pretty good.

There are some things I don't love -- spellcasters/wizards could be stronger at lower levels, skill usage feat gates, still having PC-like spells in monster blocks -- but overall it tends to play pretty well especially if you use a variety of encounters instead of the heavily loaded severe/extreme of initial adventure paths. High difficulty encounters especially with 1-2 monsters have a dynamic (low PC hit rate, very hard to make saves, etc.) that is very rough for the PCs-- which I think is great feel when you want that but not all the time to keep the 'heroic' feel alive.

 

[Campbell]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

 

[payn]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

Tactically, it works different than previous games too. For example, low level characters taking on an Ogre. In 3E/PF1, many of the wizards spells will still be quite effective. If the wiz can debuff, or even better control, the rest of the party can gank the Ogre. In PF2, the math makes a lot of spells useless, so you really have to pay attention to the riders and what is going to give the party any advantage (no matter how small). What is effective in PF2 is very different, but doesn't appear so until you hit the upper challenge ratings.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

True, extreme is extreme. That said, I think they made a mistake in labeling the lower difficulty encounters.

Low and moderate sounds like "below average" and "you shouldn't use these if you want a challenge" perhaps instead of you "you should use a lot of these for a standard heroic adventure" which is what they are.

 

[bert1001 fka bert1000]

Tactically, it works different than previous games too. For example, low level characters taking on an Ogre. In 3E/PF1, many of the wizards spells will still be quite effective. If the wiz can debuff, or even better control, the rest of the party can gank the Ogre. In PF2, the math makes a lot of spells useless, so you really have to pay attention to the riders and what is going to give the party any advantage (no matter how small). What is effective in PF2 is very different, but doesn't appear so until you hit the upper challenge ratings.

It's in there but not as clearly laid out in the books as it could be that there is a big difference between say a single Level +3 monster and the equivalent XP of lower level monsters as well.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It looks like there are so many feats and options but 1) there really isn't at each level and decision point, 2) feats generally broaden options rather than add power so not as much issue with 'optimal' feats.

Also, its easy to fall into the trap of thinking there's a million feats when most of them are siloed by class or other issues so a given character doesn't have nearly as many as it appears.

Following on that, it's not obvious with a first read that PF2e is mostly a game of trying to get in scene tactical advantages vs. pre-scene character building. Which is direct follow on to +1s and -1s are actually pretty good.

Yup. As I've noted, it tends to be a place the like/not like decision lands on hard.

There are some things I don't love -- spellcasters/wizards could be stronger at lower levels, skill usage feat gates, still having PC-like spells in monster blocks -- but overall it tends to play pretty well especially if you use a variety of encounters instead of the heavily loaded severe/extreme of initial adventure paths. High difficulty encounters especially with 1-2 monsters have a dynamic (low PC hit rate, very hard to make saves, etc.) that is very rough for the PCs-- which I think is great feel when you want that but not all the time to keep the 'heroic' feel alive.

This last part deserves emphasis; I'm convinced a fair bit of hostility to PF2e comes from people who initially hit a lot of up-rev encouters in APs or elsewhere and derived their impression of the overall game from it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

The biggest issue in my experience that new GMs have with Pathfinder Second Edition is not believing the encounter building guidelines. When they say severe they bloody well mean it!

Yeah. Its a striking difference from D&D3e or PF1e. Weirdly, as best I can say, some people don't like it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

True, extreme is extreme. That said, I think they made a mistake in labeling the lower difficulty encounters.

Low and moderate sounds like "below average" and "you shouldn't use these if you want a challenge" perhaps instead of you "you should use a lot of these for a standard heroic adventure" which is what they are.

I think that again has more to do with people's carried-forward expectation from prior editions, where anything down-rev from you at all could be pretty reliably roflstomped.

 

[president16us]

If you want to use Foundry in that way I recommend simply having the PCs, NPCs and Hazards as tokens on a single, large landing page. From there it is fairly easy to apply conditions, feat and spell effects, monster ability effects, etc. Since all official content is already included in the system this should require no prep on your part aside from anything you've home brewed. This should make the monster turns faster and easier to run.

If you can splurge I would whole heartily recommend using a screen-table, or more economically just a video screen on top of a table. It's how I prefer to run my professional in-person games and it simplifies my prep and combat tracking. Being able to have the entirety of a level of Abomination Vaults or Dungeon of the Mad Mage on display in person is immensely satisfying, and pretty useful for the party to see where they've been and where they can go. You can still use miniatures and whatnot, they can just be placed on top of where the digital tokens are.

The thing about VTTs in person I see the most push back on is digital dice rolling. There's an easy solution; don't roll the dice digitally, just use the VTT to keep track of the numbers. I personally love having the click-and-resolve simplicity built into the system, but it's entirely optional depending on how you implement Foundry as a GM tool. There's also a compromise to be had in using the Dice So Nice module to simulate 3D dice, complete with the click-clack sound they make.

Thanks for the great replies from Retreater, payn, and JThursby! I didn't grasp that tokens represent a key to a lot of the functionality. I will strongly consider using the full VTT functionality.