Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="kenada" data-source="post: 8098463" data-attributes="member: 70468">I consider PF2 to be a fairly simple game, but that’s obscured by the presentation. The Playing the Game chapter of the CRB is a pretty tough slog. It introduces checks, which is not too bad. After that, it’s just page after page of definitions. Things like vision are actually pretty simple (and cleverly designed), but that’s obscured by the three pages of definitions and explanations. One could say it was written to be a reference, but it also needs to teach the game, and it doesn’t do that very well. Happily, the a PF2 Beginner’s Box is due out sooner rather than later (one year after launch instead of a couple like PF1), but it probably should have been released along with the CRB or even prior to it (like 5e did).I’m dubious of this assumption. The system doesn’t prescribe any particular adventuring day. The only time it even mentions being fully rested is for extreme encounters, which are meant to be infrequent. Severe-threat encounters actually acknowledge that PCs might not be at full resources as a complicating factor (along with bad luck and poor tactics). If the game were predicated on PCs always being rested, then why not just say that?If the PCs get into something that’s too dangerous for them, they should flee. The CRB mentions it when discussing severe-threat encounters, but the GMG also calls this out. In the Hexploration subsystem, it discusses one approach that includes having encounters so powerful that the correct tactic is to flee. In that case, it doesn’t matter whether PCs are at full hp. They can’t win regardless. If we accept that as a valid encounter, then it’s not too much of a stretch to consider ones where they’re too depleted as valid too. And if those are valid, they become useful tools for applying pressure to PCs in a dungeon.</blockquote>

Verification