Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: is it RAW or RAI to always take 10 minutes and heal between encounters?

[Justice and Rule]

I am always leery when someone who is clearly not a beginner DM makes comments about how one system is clearly more beginner DM-friendly than another one.

lol

True, I'm an experienced hand, but I'm talking about a lot of recommendation and helping people learn both systems. I've helped teach well over a dozen people 5E, while PF2 I've had 2 people. There's a big disparity there, but part of that is I came into PF2 right around the pandemic, and also I've been helping people with 5E since it's inception. So while I'm obviously experienced, I'm trying to reference these experiences. A good portion are late-teens, many with little experience in the area outside maybe playing a few games (but never really looking at the material closely).

With that said, let me do the exact same thing. Both my 12 y.o. and my 10 y.o. have taken a hand at DMing 5e. Both were successful and neither ran into the issue you described of CR being wildly off. As a matter of fact, my experience is that if you follow the CR guidelines, the adventures will probably be on the easy side, which means that there is leeway for both the DM and the players to make mistakes.

There are a bunch of monsters that punch above their weight class, or are balanced against extreme save versus suck results. I've gotten an earful about both Intellect Devourers (who appear in a notable recent adventure and can one-shot characters pretty easily) and Banshees (which are relatively low-level but also have a power that can absolutely destroy a party on a few bad rolls). Also heard complaints about ghouls, largely because being paralyzed in 5E means you get auto-critted (which is death at a low-level), but at this point I feel like complaining about Ghouls is practically a D&D tradition.

Further, while it can get forgiving later on, the first few levels are not, which is why having an accurate CR is valuable. I feel like a good portion of the people I handed things off to had big party-kill moments early on. But yes, the complaint of being "too easy" is something that happens until they run into one of those land-mine monsters, and because the CR is wonky they generally have laid down more of them than they need to: if you are used to your players trouncing your targets, you put more in, which is bad when one your monsters ends up actually having something that can make them situationally very tough.

More than that, the trap options of 5E are just terrible. S*** like Rangers, Fighters, and certain subclasses just being boring and/or terrible are something I have been warning people about for a while. Stuff like "How much should a magic weapon cost?" or "How do you make things?" are really common ones, because there's a dearth of guidance on it despite having these skills. You just have to work to fix basic things in 5E that I keep telling people to switch over because it's not worth trying to fix it.

This has not been my experience in PF2. There are a large number of decision points where a beginner DM with beginner players can make a “wrong” decision that will TPK the party. Like a party in which no one has Medicine. Or a party in which more than one character put a 16 in their prime stat. Or the players split the party. Or the DM focus fired. Or the DM didn’t hand out Hero points after the beginning of the game. Or the DM had reinforcements enter the room without giving the players an opportunity to rest.

I feel like most of these complaints could easily be leveled at 5E. You don't need Medicine in 5E, but you do need a magical healer, and not having a good dedicated healer is definitely a pitfall in early levels (I've lived that one, where I was a paladin in a 3-person party and we almost TPK'd on two skeleton archers due to a few bad rolls). Focus fire and party splitting? Can absolutely be a problem in 5E, and the latter especially given that if you split up and get hit in the wrong saves you can get utterly trashed since most of your saves don't level up. And I'm going to straight-up disagree on the stat 16 thing, which I want to say has been discussed before.

Of course, many beginner DMs choose to start with a published module so the don’t have to worry about balancing encounters. Of course, the published modules all have multiple deadly fights (can attest to Plaguestone and Abomination Vaults, AoA and EC is hearsay).

Honestly I feel like modern APs are not good for modern gaming. I remember playing the opening to Horde of the Dragon Queen and I have no idea how the hell that even made it out of beta. Mines of Phandelvar wasn't bad, but definitely suffers from "Killer low levels" that 5E is particularly rough with. That goblin hideout can absolutely be rough if things don't go right, especially given that bugbears hit like a Mack trucker for low-level characters.

As for my kids, they haven’t been interested in DMing PF2. I suspect the 600 page CRB discouraged them. Or maybe the fact that they failed the PFS I ran for them due to 3 “poor” rolls (i.e. less than 12 on a d20).

Maybe. The two people I've gotten into PF2 haven't complained to me, or at least haven't complained to me about the same stuff people here complain about.

 

[CapnZapp]

I dont like the MMO boss feature of severe/extreme encounters and there isnt really any way around that other than only running at level or lower combats.

I have toyed around by taking a creature at the party's level or perhaps one or two levels above it, and granting it double hit points.

This makes for a less frustrating session, since attacks and spells actually do connect.

Of course, this is best reserved for large monsters that appear to rely on size and sheer might. A monster that appears more "elite" or "skilled" (like a regular ninja humanoid, just one four levels above the party level) is probably left as a severe/extreme level boss.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Sorry, meant to post this first. Whoops.

The baseline is everything though, you cant escape it. I dont like the MMO boss feature of severe/extreme encounters and there isnt really any way around that other than only running at level or lower combats.

I guess? I mean, if it doesn't work for you how feel things, that's fine. 5E is very hit or miss on that, and I ended up basically crafting all my own monsters using inspiration from 4E and 13th Age, as well as using the best features of 5E more often (My God, why do then not use Legendary Actions unless the monster gets 3 of them?! Use them for more multi-attack monsters!).

My nearly 20 years of experience in 3E/PF translates easily to 5E, I dont know what to do with PF2. Most variants and hacks dont help my issues. I will concede that 3E/5E CR system is a poor guide for newbs and can be frustrating for the uninitiated.

This seems like a taste thing. That's fine. For me, I've got experience from AD&D, 2E, a little of 3E (though more from Star Wars RCR). I hit it off on 5E pretty easily, but I just got tired of it's vagueness. PF2... I just grok it really easily. It's very much a "This hole was made for me" sort of thing, I suppose.

 

[Campbell]

I love playing 5e, but I like bounced hard off of running it. Mostly I never felt like I could design hard encounters that felt fundamentally fair. 5e characters seem to have these wide gapping holes that make me feel like I always have to hold back.

 

[Justice and Rule]

I love playing 5e, but I like bounced hard off of running it. Mostly I never felt like I could design hard encounters that felt fundamentally fair. 5e characters seem to have these wide gapping holes that make me feel like I always have to hold back.

I'll play it if someone's running it. I won't run it again. I'm just tired of having to house rule it into a new game. I've said this several times, but when I found PF2E I was in the process of basically recreating the PF2 Fighter in 5E without having seen PF2. If I had found it sooner, probably would have saved me a good bunch of time.

 

[payn]

I guess? I mean, if it doesn't work for you how feel things, that's fine. 5E is very hit or miss on that, and I ended up basically crafting all my own monsters using inspiration from 4E and 13th Age, as well as using the best features of 5E more often (My God, why do then not use Legendary Actions unless the monster gets 3 of them?! Use them for more multi-attack monsters!).

Ah, I see why PF2 is the bees knees for you now.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Ah, I see why PF2 is the bees knees for you now.

Yeah, monster design is definitely a part of it. Big dropped ball for 5E, honestly, since I think they have good ideas for more complex monsters, they just use them so sparingly.

 

[JmanTheDM]

This has not been my experience in PF2. There are a large number of decision points where a beginner DM with beginner players can make a “wrong” decision that will TPK the party.

And this.

I find this slightly misleading, though I do understand why no additional qualifiers have been added.
my experience - granted, its anecdotal, of being a player in 1 PF2 game (with a 1st time PF2 GM), and being the GM in 3 is while its true that beginner "players" can make "wrong" decisions that "will" lead to a TPK, its just as likely that new players and GMs, can make a "wrong" decision that will significantly "weaken the encounter" as well.

you forget to apply a condition. things get easier
you forget to apply a resistance or immunity.. same
you forget to synergize a foe's 3rd action by use of aid..
you outright forget to use their skills like demoralize, stealth, trip, grab, because they are not printed on the stat block "in your face"
you stand there and attack 3 times...
you cast the "wrong" spells that target the PC's high save
etc. etc. etc.

IME, its just as likely that new (and not-so-new) players and GMs can make mistakes that go both ways - makes encounters tougher by giving the opposing side openings, and easier, by not exploiting obvious combat tools available to you.. IME, things end up even.

inexperience is not only a one-way march towards player death

Cheers,

J.

 

[Retreater]

I find this slightly misleading, though I do understand why no additional qualifiers have been added.
my experience - granted, its anecdotal, of being a player in 1 PF2 game (with a 1st time PF2 GM), and being the GM in 3 is while its true that beginner "players" can make "wrong" decisions that "will" lead to a TPK, its just as likely that new players and GMs, can make a "wrong" decision that will significantly "weaken the encounter" as well.

Players usually don't have an awful time when an encounter is too easy. However, they remember when a mistake leads to character death(s).

Sure, I've forgotten a few abilities for enemies and maybe didn't always play them like tactical geniuses. But the times when I did steamroll over parties, those few times really stand out. And if you do make a mistake like that, you risk ending your campaign in 2-3 rounds.

But I can say that our bad experiences with PF2 didn't necessarily come from the challenge. I've run systems where combats can be deadly, such as Call of Cthulhu or any OSR variation. I think the main issue, across all the games I've played for the various groups, is that the system never got out of the way. It always felt like learning a simulation, even after months of play, whether in-person or online. Honestly, it felt like trying to graft roleplaying on top of Descent or Gloomhaven.

I'm not saying groups can't have a great experience roleplaying in PF2 or that it's not fun. I enjoyed the heck out of 4e, but it's not a great system for roleplaying. Like PF2, when you have rules to make combats (or exploration) thrilling, mechanical affairs with lots of rules options, you run the risk of making those elements of the game to be a rules simulation that take away from immersion. I think that's my overall issue with PF2, 4e, and other systems like that. They just don't do what I want a roleplaying game to do.

 

[FrozenNorth]

you forget to apply a condition. things get easier
you forget to apply a resistance or immunity.. same
you forget to synergize a foe's 3rd action by use of aid..
you outright forget to use their skills like demoralize, stealth, trip, grab, because they are not printed on the stat block "in your face"
you stand there and attack 3 times...
you cast the "wrong" spells that target the PC's high save
etc. etc. etc.

DMs making a mistake that weakens an encounter is not a problem for either the DM or the players. If despite the mistake, the encounter is challenging, neither party may even realize the issue. If the mistake led to the party to steamroll an encounter that should have been more difficult, the DM has a reason to review the fight and take steps not to repeat the error. After all, the DM has infinite dragons to throw at the party.

A DM or player that makes a mistake that ends in character death tends to be more serious. Many players are attached to their characters and bummed when they die particularly when it is due to a mistake. A TPK (or even a near TPK) may be the end of the campaign.