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

[MaskedGuy]

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.

But yeah I don't disagree with that your plan is also cool, but yeah I do like AV's exploration and discovering what is going on aspect.

 

[Staffan]

This is a hot take, but I just dont think PF2 does mega dungeons or sandbox play well.

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.

I don't think PF2 can do wide-open sandbox very well, but it could probably do a reasonable facsimile of the Quest for Glory series: a series of smaller sandboxes and once you outgrow one, you move on to the next.

 

[payn]

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.

I don't think PF2 can do wide-open sandbox very well, but it could probably do a reasonable facsimile of the Quest for Glory series: a series of smaller sandboxes and once you outgrow one, you move on to the next.

I can totally see that in PF2.

 

[MaskedGuy]

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.

I don't think PF2 can do wide-open sandbox very well, but it could probably do a reasonable facsimile of the Quest for Glory series: a series of smaller sandboxes and once you outgrow one, you move on to the next.

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)

 

[Thomas Shey]

Agreed. This is not unique to PF2.

I suspect the only reason you don't see it as much with new editions outside the D&D-sphere is that very few of them produce much in the way of adventures for various reasons.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Either way though, I think main pro and con of AV is that its classic mega dungeon. Which means deadly encounters, really deadly hazards and etc. On level 1-3 of pathfinder 2e, minibosses are painfully hard because you don't have hp or resources to deal with them safely, so I would really prefer it if paizo instead focused on mook encounters on those levels, but they don't really do that for most part.

Well, as someone else (Keneda, maybe?) noted, it didn't help that the number of Level 0 and Level -1 opponents were, at least initially, very limited.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yep, that is true. I guess I just don't let it bother me much, regardless of ridiculous it can be some times.

A lot of people will let something pass once or twice, but after that they just can't be bothered with someone who keeps doing it (especially when a lot of his posting either seems to be based on things that don't seem problems to them, or are things they actively prefer). Heck, there's at least one poster in this thread who isn't a massive PF2e fan who I suspect from past reactions finds it a bit much.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

 

[Thomas Shey]

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.

I don't think PF2 can do wide-open sandbox very well, but it could probably do a reasonable facsimile of the Quest for Glory series: a series of smaller sandboxes and once you outgrow one, you move on to the next.

I can wonder if any game can handle a wide open sandbox with significant power curve in it; only reason it wasn't too often a problem in OD&D was the combination of slow progression and the presumption in some places that you'd stop adventuring somewhere around name level.

 

[payn]

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.

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.