Pathfinder 2E PF2 Peeves

[Fanaelialae]

Kind of annoying that bigger dragons and elementals have bigger weaknesses. So if a Level 1 Cleric uses Tidal Surge on a Fire Mephit it presumably does 3 damage. But if that same character uses it on an Elder Fire Elemental, a Level 11 creature, that same Tidal Surge does 15 damage.

I can see what you're saying, and it struck me as strange at first glance as well.

There's definitely an argument to be made for static weaknesses that creatures "age out" of.

However, upon further examination, I noticed that it does decrease in proportion to hp. Weakness is 1/7th of a Fire Mephit's hp, whereas it is 1/16th for a Greater Fire Elemental. So, at least in that respect, it does decrease as the creatures get bigger.

 

[Henry]

PF2 reads as if it will produce 5 minute adventuring days. In PF1, casters could blow all their resources in one fight. Now, everybody can.

* Few spells last more than 1 minute.
* Fewer spell slots.
* Resonance limits items used per day
* Attack bonus vs. AC setup basically guarantees you get hurt every fight.
* Only clerics can now heal enough to extend the adventuring day

It hasn't happened in our test games so far (admittedly only two). I'm curious to see how many people report their resource usage during actual play, because spellcasters are bolstered by cantrips that are actually useful, now, and the cleric healing is extremely powerful. In Part 1, our group made it all the way through the entire adventure without having to rest (although the cleric was drained of all healing at the last battle, so we would have had to.) In part 2 (still ongoing) they just decided to rest now, after having gone through five encounters (two of which were resolved through diplomacy) before deciding to rest. So far, Nova-powering hasn't been a thing.

As for the need for a cleric, I have to say yes to this; no one has tried a divine oracle or alchemist yet, so we'll have to see, but both look as though they do need a little bit of extra help to even be half the healers that clerics are - not that the clerics haven't been able to do anything else, but the clerics can gear up for offense and STILL be massively good healers.

 

[zztong]

The third session of our PF2 playtest is tonight and we might be able to finish the first part. We've rested twice, both times because of a mix of consumed healing resources and simply hitting the end of the play period. IIRC, the Cleric has been focused on healing, though they did get into melee last time, got roughed up, and had to withdraw. We definitely experience the X-minute adventuring day, limited by healing.

As the Wizard, I cast my first meaningful spell in the second session and had lived off of cantrips up to that point. The Wizard has the luxury of cantrips that contribute to combat. The Cleric does not have a healing cantrip. While that might solve the X-minute day I would find it weird. It would make the game seem more like the old "Gauntlet" video game. ("Elf shot the food!") Yet, for reasons of being a flawed and inconsistent human, I've always been okay with folks acquiring CLW wands to bring along. Just shoot me.

Really, the x-minute day thing is more a result of adventure design. If you feel like you have to fill out a dungeon with a selection of creative, yet filler, encounters, then you have fights that don't necessarily contribute to the story and drain resources, forcing the party to stop exploring the story.

In a sense, skill systems have trampled on some roleplay. In D&D 1e, for instance, there was no skill system. If you wanted to search a room you did that through description. "I check the desk drawer for traps. If I don't find any, I look inside." Then the DM would cough up what was in the drawer. Searching a room might take several minutes of play. These days, "we search the room." One set of rolls and you get a list of stuff. You're done in a minute. Next room.

 

[Starfox]

In a sense, skill systems have trampled on some roleplay. ..

I think this is what "Old Skool" is all about. Personally, I'm old but not old school, but to each their own.

 

[zztong]

I think this is what "Old Skool" is all about. Personally, I'm old but not old school, but to each their own.

When I run, I cater to both, specially when its for a college game club. I tell them you can depend on the skill system if you want, or you can roleplay, or even both, depending on whatever you're comfortable with and even based on crappy die roll results. Some players need time to warm up to a group of new players. Some players make characters outside their own areas of knowledge. Both groups need a mechanical skill system more.

 

[darjr]

There was a post by an OSR blogger that wanted to use Theives skills in OD&D as saving throws. Everyone could do what a thief does, but if they mess it up or do the wrong thing they are in trouble, the thief gets a "saving throw" skill check to avert disaster. I was contemplating doing this for all skills, somehow, sometime, maybe. I think it's doable.

So everyone just explains what they are doing and rps it. Then if they mess up or get into trouble, bang, saving throw that is really a skill check. Sort of. The one big hangup are things like history checks. I thought that rping a flash back to school days or something like that would work, maybe.

 

[trancejeremy]

I think this is what "Old Skool" is all about. Personally, I'm old but not old school, but to each their own.

To me this makes no sense, because thieves came into existence in what, 1975? And came about almost immediately as a reaction of players who wanted a character who could do thief like stuff, which EGG then picked up and added to the game.

The supposed "golden age" of RPGs where skills never existed is basically a myth.

 

[darjr]

could be

The thief did have to be invented, there was play before its invention.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogue_(Dungeons_&_Dragons)?wprov=sfti1

 

[Jer]

The supposed "golden age" of RPGs where skills never existed is basically a myth.

That's what all golden ages are. There has never been a real golden age of anything - "golden ages" come about because of people trying to reconstruct the past and mostly using the fond memories of people who were there and forgetting about the bad stuff that was also happening at the time.

 

[zztong]

The supposed "golden age" of RPGs where skills never existed is basically a myth.

I don't know about "golden age" declarations, but I would say it is demonstrably untrue that all early games had a skill system. Citing AD&D 1e, you could suggest that weapon proficiencies was a skill system, but it only addressed weapons. You have suggested rogue abilities were a skill system, but they didn't cover all characters. You could claim all persons had a "bend-bars/lift gates" skill linked to their strength, I suppose. I'd concur there were glimpses of an emerging skill system.

Go back to Chainmail and folks who were roleplaying with that. (Admittedly, there are like 6 different games in those rules.) There's not even a hint of a skill system in the set where you roll to kill based on weapon and armor. Folks who roleplayed using that system had characters advance to Hero, and had to be "killed" 4 times, and Superhero which had to be "killed" 8 times, before they fell. No skills, but roleplay was happening.

I think I'd rather label that time the "Dark Ages" of RPG, but I do have "Golden Age"-like fond memories.