Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 8155290" data-attributes="member: 12731">Of course, to you it won't. Myself, after a year of running official content I'm itching to play a more flexible campaign where the players have some agency to set the difficulty level themselves. It's as my fighter player said: getting to be Legendary in pole-arms (his chosen specialty) doesn't feel very "legendary" since monsters keep sporting ever-higher Armor Classes, and you don't really feel like you're ever getting to dominate the game.The answer of course is that "legendary" is just a label. The point in this game is that you remain 2 points ahead of the other heroes.But of course I understand his sentiment - there's nothing "legendary" by a +10% boost.This downplays the importance of showing how the game can be played too much for my liking. We can of course discuss whether PF2's design is specifically and precisely geared towards the exact playstyle showcased by the official material, but I hope we agree Pathfinder 2 is - like every other game - better equipped to handle some campaign styles than others. I'm just saying that I find it natural to claim PF2 isn't created for sandbox play. Can it be used for such a campaign? Yes of course, but the question really asks if the game in question really is an easy and straightforward choice of ruleset?In PF2's case, I'd say you need to tweak so many things you're probably better off using another engine to start with. Again it's not that it can't be done, but why do a lot of work when other games let you get away with a little?Not exactly sure what you mean by set pieces?If you mean a focus on extra-special combats, where extra care has been taken to challenge the players (maybe special terrain or particular interactions between the monsters or tasks the characters have to perform while fighting) then no, there aren't really any set pieces.If you merely mean that (nearly) every fight is intended to be challenging in itself, then yes, very much so. Everything about the game is geared towards forgetting about resources and making the individual fight the centerpiece of today's excitement.So when you contrast to 4E, then I think I know what you mean (and agree).---I guess I'm getting bored with the ultra-sharp focus on encounter balance. Everything about the game and the adventures suggest it would be a shame if the players were to do something smart that shortcircuits the fight (its challenge level) - that a fight where the lethality has been defused is a waste, but I don't agree. I think things become more interesting and engaging if the players realize they are allowed to make smart story decisions that are rewarded by pushover fights (=less risk of death).Here of course Pathfinder 2 has a huge advantage over 4E - faster resolution and more spikey randomness. Pushover fights can still happen since they're won quickly. Less easy fights can still become dangerous/interesting if something happens (bad dice luck etc).I need to get away from the predictability of "level appropriateness". If there's always a new level+3 monster around the corner that completely dominates you during the first round of combat, that negates the entire idea about "zero to hero".</blockquote>

Verification