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

[Justice and Rule]

What I gathered from previous discussions on the topic is the possible encounter band is simply wound way too tight in PF2. Instead of level +4, folks would like more in the range of level +6-8 which aligns with older RPG systems. Seems PWL variant can help achieve this.

PWL probably does given how the math works in that, but having an 8-level range along with the "Weak" and "Elite" tags (Wounded dragons, elite mercenaries, etc) should work to give things variety. The bigger thing I think is that what are your expectations of going into an encounter? Does every encounter have to have a reasonable chance of win/loss?

This isn't to say that it's perfect for it, but rather I want to get at what people look at in a sandbox. For me, the players should be able to go out and find things, research things back home, have encounters won't be able to win and will either have to avoid or retreat from them. I think PF2 does that fairly well, and allows a GM to know going in how difficult an encounter is going to be before the players get there. Now for some that might be not what they want in a sandbox, that no one should quite know what is going to happen when going into an encounter. I respect that and understand it, though it's not for me nowadays.

 

[payn]

PWL probably does given how the math works in that, but having an 8-level range along with the "Weak" and "Elite" tags (Wounded dragons, elite mercenaries, etc) should work to give things variety. The bigger thing I think is that what are your expectations of going into an encounter? Does every encounter have to have a reasonable chance of win/loss?

For me, I like players being able to punch above their weight. I don't think stock PF2 really allows them to do this. Also, this is a bit skill play old school, I like the players being able to use environment, spells, items, etc.. to their advantage to make a fight they otherwise would lose. PF2 math doesn't allow that to work. As was mentioned also earlier, PF2 is like dragonballz in which level is just a simple barrier. "Must be this tall to ride" kind of thing.

This isn't to say that it's perfect for it, but rather I want to get at what people look at in a sandbox. For me, the players should be able to go out and find things, research things back home, have encounters won't be able to win and will either have to avoid or retreat from them. I think PF2 does that fairly well, and allows a GM to know going in how difficult an encounter is going to be before the players get there. Now for some that might be not what they want in a sandbox, that no one should quite know what is going to happen when going into an encounter. I respect that and understand it, though it's not for me nowadays.

I think for me the CR in PF1 never being accurate was a feature. It gave a variety to encounters that PF2 math bolted down. All encounters feel the same at their respective level. So, an open world feels more like a compartmentalized one as opposed to an actual ecosystem.

 

[Retreater]

Cult of Cinders (Age of Ashes 2) was mostly a hexcrawl, albeit one with a direction ("Go find and destroy these things and then deal with the real bad guys"). That worked fine, but was limited in scope.

What ended up happening when I ran that adventure was the following:
Party had a TPK during the hexcrawl. New party had no logical way to start the adventure or connection to the 1st adventure (which was set up very well, btw).
We were averaging a TPK every other session.
Age of Ashes was too lethal to maintain a sense of continuity. Since we were playing it in an attempt to test the system, the players didn't want me to tinker with the AP very much.

So I take they were like "we just crush soul gem" instead of taking it with them and realizing what they can do with it in workshop.

"It is valuable, so let's sell it." The portrait of the evil caster that could've been used in the encounter was also "it's valuable, so let's sell it."
I can't fault them for selling "story items" when they want to purchase new gear, especially when they felt they were falling behind compared to the high challenge monsters - barely able to hit or damage some of them.

 

[Justice and Rule]

For me, I like players being able to punch above their weight. I don't think stock PF2 really allows them to do this. Also, this is a bit skill play old school, I like the players being able to use environment, spells, items, etc.. to their advantage to make a fight they otherwise would lose. PF2 math doesn't allow that to work. As was mentioned also earlier, PF2 is like dragonballz in which level is just a simple barrier. "Must be this tall to ride" kind of thing.

I mean, players can do all those things and it'll still work. The math is tighter, but it doesn't mean those things don't factor in; they absolutely can, especially if the CR is high due to numbers. And you can still win battles the old school way: by not fighting them but luring people into a trap or some such thing outside of combat: back in the day I remember a GM letting us kill a dragon with a rockslide, which was totally a GM call. But that's less of a system thing and more of a style thing, which to me is a big part of sandboxing.

I think for me the CR in PF1 never being accurate was a feature. It gave a variety to encounters that PF2 math bolted down. All encounters feel the same at their respective level. So, an open world feels more like a compartmentalized one as opposed to an actual ecosystem.

Yeah, gotta disagree hard with this. I like having info be accurate. "Variety" to me is not "Oh wow, I just TPK'd a party because the game sucks at its monster math" or "Man, my players blew through that because this monster is rated improperly", it's "Wow, these fights feel different because the monsters and environments are forcing me to do different things". If you don't like tight math, I can get that. But bad math is never good, sometimes people just manage to forgive it.

 

[payn]

I mean, players can do all those things and it'll still work. The math is tighter, but it doesn't mean those things don't factor in; they absolutely can, especially if the CR is high due to numbers. And you can still win battles the old school way: by not fighting them but luring people into a trap or some such thing outside of combat: back in the day I remember a GM letting us kill a dragon with a rockslide, which was totally a GM call. But that's less of a system thing and more of a style thing, which to me is a big part of sandboxing.

Its true, much of this is a rulings over rules approach. Im not sure what PF2 design thinks on that. I've assumed it was more rules over rulings.

Yeah, gotta disagree hard with this. I like having info be accurate. "Variety" to me is not "Oh wow, I just TPK'd a party because the game sucks at its monster math" or "Man, my players blew through that because this monster is rated improperly", it's "Wow, these fights feel different because the monsters and environments are forcing me to do different things". If you don't like tight math, I can get that. But bad math is never good, sometimes people just manage to forgive it.

Part of it wasnt so much loving bad math, it was just experiencing what the real variance is. GM experience was huge in running successful PF1. PF2 took out the guess work but also the variety.

 

[Justice and Rule]

Its true, much of this is a rulings over rules approach. Im not sure what PF2 design thinks on that. I've assumed it was more rules over rulings.

PF2 looks towards rules, but it doesn't mean you can't make rulings, especially in this regard. Typically speaking what PF2 does is give you systems you can work within, like the VP system that @kenada brings up a bunch. Outside of combat I think things are generally way more open.

Part of it wasnt so much loving bad math, it was just experiencing what the real variance is. GM experience was huge in running successful PF1. PF2 took out the guess work but also the variety.

I guess, though I generally don't like that sort of uncertainty. YMMV.

 

[Thomas Shey]

PWL probably does given how the math works in that, but having an 8-level range along with the "Weak" and "Elite" tags (Wounded dragons, elite mercenaries, etc) should work to give things variety. The bigger thing I think is that what are your expectations of going into an encounter? Does every encounter have to have a reasonable chance of win/loss?

Well, there's another issue with sandboxes that was even true in the old days; how easy is it to retreat? Alternatively, how consistent is the warning that you're getting in over your head? Without these two being handled well, even a OD&D sandbox was a deathtrap looking for a place to happen.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I think for me the CR in PF1 never being accurate was a feature. It gave a variety to encounters that PF2 math bolted down. All encounters feel the same at their respective level. So, an open world feels more like a compartmentalized one as opposed to an actual ecosystem.

Please don't take it wrong but--if CR isn't to define the actual hazard of the encounter, what's the point?

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I’m skeptical. Pathfinder 2e wouldn’t be my first choice for those kinds of games, but it seemed to do okay when I ran them with it. My issues with the system ultimately came down to my evolving system preferences rather than systemic problems. I also believe @The-Magic-Sword is doing some sandbox stuff as well, and that seems to be going okay.

Its going pretty well at this point, every time I start to worry the whole thing is collapsing in on me we have a really good game session and it gives me a reality check that it's actually going great. At this point I'm letting it go for a while and then I'm planning to make a big post, since people have indicated an interest in it once I've got a nice accumulation going.

Also fun fact: Our first session included random table results where players lucked into a key for a sealed door in another hex I was certainly not expecting them to find in session 1 and ended up being lured and trapped into the center room of this map, by a pack of ghouls and a ghast that would have been a severe encounter for a group of level 3 players (they were level 1) they actually all made it out alive, and destroyed the ghouls to a man in the process, despite having to fish their healer out of the hole first which they had jumped to the bottom of prior to the ghouls flooding the room. Dedicated healing via the heal spell (which also damages undeadwas vital, and our Armor Inventor's High AC and AOE damage helped a lot.

 

[payn]

Please don't take it wrong but--if CR isn't to define the actual hazard of the encounter, what's the point?

Its a guideline instead of a hard fast rule. That doesn't sit well with some folks, and others are quite comfortable with it.

 

[kenada]

I think the kingmaker 2e hardcover will probably show it either way how well or badly sandbox works in 2e.

(I honestly can't tell, I imagine in homebrew it works fine, but in published adventure not sure)

I thought it was just a conversion? I ran the original Kingmaker for PF1, and it was not a sandbox campaign. Wilderness exploration was treated as an outdoor dungeon (more or less). That you can possibly do encounters in a different order isn’t sufficient to make a sandbox campaign.

 

[kenada]

I honestly think that PF2 can do sandbox fine, but I feel like everyone has their own idea of what sandboxing really is. Like, is sandboxing being able to do anything, run into anything, and having the possibility to win regardless? Or is it that you can potentially run into unwinnable stuff and have to extricate yourself from the situation? How much signposting do you want? Do you feel like your players should do research/recon on a place they are going beforehand? Like most of the RPG space, these are generally very individualized answers.

I’d define a sandbox game as one where the PCs decide what happens next. If there are plot beats you need to hit, it’s not much of a sandbox. That gives quite a bit of room for how to go about doing the sandbox. I would consider an exploration-driven hexcrawl, an adventure-focused campaign like Worlds Without Number prescribes, and Scum and Villainy all different takes on sandbox games. I think Pathfinder 2e can do most of those. If you want to run core (i.e., not using Proficiency without Level), you probably want to be mindful with how you’re populating monsters, but I think it’s still doable.

 

[payn]

I thought it was just a conversion? I ran the original Kingmaker for PF1, and it was not a sandbox campaign. Wilderness exploration was treated as an outdoor dungeon (more or less). That you can possibly do encounters in a different order isn’t sufficient to make a sandbox campaign.

Thinking about it, I think PF2 could handle Kingmaker quite well. You are correct in that it isn't a traditional sandbox, but a hexcrawl exploration campaign.

edit; ninja'd

 

[Thomas Shey]

Its a guideline instead of a hard fast rule. That doesn't sit well with some folks, and others are quite comfortable with it.

It doesn't even seem a useful guideline if it fails as often as not, as was the case with 3e D&D at least (I'm not qualified to say about PF1e, though the general indicators seem to be the same). You can argue it doesn't need to be as tight as PF2e in that regard, but it should still be an indicator of the default case, and I'm not convinced at medium to highish levels it was even that.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I’d define a sandbox game as one where the PCs decide what happens next. If there are plot beats you need to hit, it’s not much of a sandbox. That gives quite a bit of room for how to go about doing the sandbox. I would consider an exploration-driven hexcrawl, an adventure-focused campaign like Worlds Without Number prescribes, and Scum and Villainy all different takes on sandbox games. I think Pathfinder 2e can do most of those. If you want to run core (i.e., not using Proficiency without Level), you probably want to be mindful with how you’re populating monsters, but I think it’s still doable.

Like I said, you'd need to examine two things, one operational, one at least semi-rules based:

1. Operational: You need to really think about signs of problems that can be encountered before the problems are. Some of the PF2e Exploration Actions probably help here, but you're going to need to strongly avoid potential blind surprise situations (where its unlikely that the PCs can reasonably detect the problem before they trigger it). You also need to make it blindingly clear that they need to do those Exploration Actions and pay attention to them.
2. Semi-Rules Based: As with most editions of D&D (there are a few I don't know well enough to overgeneralize about), its not self-evident in all cases that trying to flee when things go wrong is particularly going to go well unless the only purpose of an opponent is to drive you off. When you have relatively low level creatures that can generate 40' moves and/or fly, trying to run away with a 25' move is, on the face of it, not a winner. You probably need to develop general evasion procedures beyond what the game currently has, and ones that tend to favor those fleeing. Otherwise the first time someone runs into, say, a dire boar (that's not what they're called in PF2e, but that's basically what they are) they might as well fight to the death because running away is a loser.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Personally, I'm not sure there's overly much point in have 20 levels of progression if, say, the difference between an 8th level opponent and a 12th level one isn't pretty stark. At that point I'd just go with ten levels like they do in 13th Age and Shadow of the Demon Lord.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

Like I said, you'd need to examine two things, one operational, one at least semi-rules based:

1. Operational: You need to really think about signs of problems that can be encountered before the problems are. Some of the PF2e Exploration Actions probably help here, but you're going to need to strongly avoid potential blind surprise situations (where its unlikely that the PCs can reasonably detect the problem before they trigger it). You also need to make it blindingly clear that they need to do those Exploration Actions and pay attention to them.
2. Semi-Rules Based: As with most editions of D&D (there are a few I don't know well enough to overgeneralize about), its not self-evident in all cases that trying to flee when things go wrong is particularly going to go well unless the only purpose of an opponent is to drive you off. When you have relatively low level creatures that can generate 40' moves and/or fly, trying to run away with a 25' move is, on the face of it, not a winner. You probably need to develop general evasion procedures beyond what the game currently has, and ones that tend to favor those fleeing. Otherwise the first time someone runs into, say, a dire boar (that's not what they're called in PF2e, but that's basically what they are) they might as well fight to the death because running away is a loser.

The second one of those, speaking from experience, is well handled by the chase procedure in the GMG, I'm still getting used to improvising them, but they work pretty well and aren't especially cumbersome.

 

[The-Magic-Sword]

I’d define a sandbox game as one where the PCs decide what happens next. If there are plot beats you need to hit, it’s not much of a sandbox. That gives quite a bit of room for how to go about doing the sandbox. I would consider an exploration-driven hexcrawl, an adventure-focused campaign like Worlds Without Number prescribes, and Scum and Villainy all different takes on sandbox games. I think Pathfinder 2e can do most of those. If you want to run core (i.e., not using Proficiency without Level), you probably want to be mindful with how you’re populating monsters, but I think it’s still doable.

As an example, we use a zone structure, where a group of hexes (in our case a substantial group, due to how we scaled our map) have a designated level, we go above and below that level for pockets of danger and such and telegraph them accordingly. (For instance my 'level 2' dungeon they're in, has a level 6 wraith in a room that exudes menace and is covered in sealing spell tags the players would have to break to challenge it.) The overall zones are pretty obvious from shifts in terrain, and I'm not above video game title splashes when they enter a new zone or dungeon sometimes.

 

[payn]

It doesn't even seem a useful guideline if it fails as often as not, as was the case with 3e D&D at least (I'm not qualified to say about PF1e, though the general indicators seem to be the same). You can argue it doesn't need to be as tight as PF2e in that regard, but it should still be an indicator of the default case, and I'm not convinced at medium to highish levels it was even that.

Knock it all you want, but the best gaming I've ever had is right out of the 3E/PF1 CR. Not saying its always roses, but once you get a feel for it you can have some real fun encounters. PF2 was all samey to me. I didn't really really enjoy it at most encounter levels. I'm curious how PWL opens it up?

 

[dave2008]

Personally, I'm not sure there's overly much point in have 20 levels of progression if, say, the difference between an 8th level opponent and a 12th level one isn't pretty stark. At that point I'd just go with ten levels like they do in 13th Age and Shadow of the Demon Lord.

I personally I do not want much difference between a lvl 8 and a lvl 12. Some difference, but not an insurmountable difference IMO. We like slow, modest progress across levels. At least for PCs. Traditionally CR is different than level (I'm guessing that is why PF2 uses levels for everything) and there can and possibly should be more difference between a CR8 and a CR 12 monster.