What gets me playing Draw Steel and not Pathfinder 2e?

[Thomas Shey]

I think that might be one of the reasons PF2E, despite some comparisions to 4E, feels very different. It's not that 4E doesn't also have lots of conditions and situational modifiers, but Pathfinder seems to be much more focused on that and a lot less on maneuvering and forced movement. Arguably, that makes it simpler for Theatre of the Mind players, but you now have to manage all these conditions, which feels like it's mostly unevocative book-keeping. It's still very important, because you want to hit and crit your enemy, and not be hit or at least not be critted, but it is kinda dull to me. I'd rather shove an enemy into a fire(ball AoE).

I can see the argument. PF2e is one of the few D&D-adjacents I have any interest in, but the condition-hunting does sometimes feel excessive. I still think its better than the Million Special Cases D&D was prone to in the Bad Old Days, but I can understand someone who finds it tiresome.

Using a tactical map and having abilities that "play" on that map lets you encode conditions in a very easy to understand manner. You now need that map, but you don't need to add and subtract all those numbers.

Eh. I personally don't think swinging all the way the other way actually is an improvement. Not everything that you can do to an opponent is about position.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Yeah, PF2 is very conservative with forced movement. The basic ability is Shove, which is an Athletics skill vs Fortitude defense, and you push the target 5' on a success (or 10' on a crit). Pushing someone farther than that is a level 12 feat, and spells generally have a similar scale on any forced movement they apply.

My best guess is its because of action point denial being a sometimes pretty serious impact in and of itself, and moving a lot of opponents more than 5' can produce that in practice.

 

[payn]

My best guess is its because of action point denial being a sometimes pretty serious impact in and of itself, and moving a lot of opponents more than 5' can produce that in practice.

This is a good point. Instead of controlling the field with movement, PF2 is more about controlling the action economy.

 

[WillPhillips]

PF2e is one of the few D&D-adjacents I have any interest in, but the condition-hunting does sometimes feel excessive.

Same. I appreciate how polished PF2E is, but I'm just not looking for the kind of game where I have to have several reference sheets of moves and conditions to track.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I think that might be one of the reasons PF2E, despite some comparisions to 4E, feels very different. It's not that 4E doesn't also have lots of conditions and situational modifiers, but Pathfinder seems to be much more focused on that and a lot less on maneuvering and forced movement. Arguably, that makes it simpler for Theatre of the Mind players, but you now have to manage all these conditions, which feels like it's mostly unevocative book-keeping. It's still very important, because you want to hit and crit your enemy, and not be hit or at least not be critted, but it is kinda dull to me. I'd rather shove an enemy into a fire(ball AoE).
Using a tactical map and having abilities that "play" on that map lets you encode conditions in a very easy to understand manner. You now need that map, but you don't need to add and subtract all those numbers.

To me the big difference between forced movement and inflicting conditions is that when you inflict conditions you're interacting with the mechanics with something that you can do every fight; when you use forced movement and get a bonus from it you're interacting with the setting. And interacting with the setting is vastly more interesting in every way than stacking another paperclip or ring on a mini. (Of course a paperclip or ring is itself more interesting than playing patty cake until someone's hit points reach zero).

 

[Thomas Shey]

To me the big difference between forced movement and inflicting conditions is that when you inflict conditions you're interacting with the mechanics with something that you can do every fight; when you use forced movement and get a bonus from it you're interacting with the setting. And interacting with the setting is vastly more interesting in every way than stacking another paperclip or ring on a mini. (Of course a paperclip or ring is itself more interesting than playing patty cake until someone's hit points reach zero).

I just don't think one of the two alone represents the variety of things you can do besides simple trauma.

 

[WillPhillips]

To me the big difference between forced movement and inflicting conditions is that when you inflict conditions you're interacting with the mechanics with something that you can do every fight; when you use forced movement and get a bonus from it you're interacting with the setting. And interacting with the setting is vastly more interesting in every way than stacking another paperclip or ring on a mini. (Of course a paperclip or ring is itself more interesting than playing patty cake until someone's hit points reach zero).

I gotta be honest, over here in the land of my increasingly myopic rules-light preferences, the difference between these two points of view is pretty negligible and academic.

Both are additives to increase the tactical decision making in a combat - and extra things to track. It makes little difference to me if it's conditions with paperclips or where exactly on a grid a mini is.

Mileage certainly varies for folks who want that level of crunchiness, of course!

 

[zakael19]

I gotta be honest, over here in the land of my increasingly myopic rules-light preferences, the difference between these two points of view is pretty negligible and academic.

Both are additives to increase the tactical decision making in a combat - and extra things to track. It makes little difference to me if it's conditions with paperclips or where exactly on a grid a mini is.

Mileage certainly varies for folks who want that level of crunchiness, of course!

There’s an additional layer of “how is the game feel that results from the mechanics.” Eg: what does the actual fiction that surrounds those turn by turn actions look and sound like.

 

[Thomas Shey]

There’s an additional layer of “how is the game feel that results from the mechanics.” Eg: what does the actual fiction that surrounds those turn by turn actions look and sound like.

Well, and just how much engagement you feel in the combat part of the game. If someone just finds combat a thing to get resolved to get onto the next thing, rather than an important part of the game element (or doesn't care much about the game element in the first place) its likely to just feel like unnecessary extra overhead. My own feeling is that if that was my feeling I'd be in a vastly different part of the penumbra of the hobby.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I gotta be honest, over here in the land of my increasingly myopic rules-light preferences, the difference between these two points of view is pretty negligible and academic.

Both are additives to increase the tactical decision making in a combat - and extra things to track. It makes little difference to me if it's conditions with paperclips or where exactly on a grid a mini is.

Mileage certainly varies for folks who want that level of crunchiness, of course!

I have a question: if you are purely into rules light why worry about a thread about Draw Steel and PF2e?

But forced movement isn't really "extra things to track". You're already playing in an environment so there's nothing added to the fiction. If you're helping visualise by means of a sketch map that's not adding rules complexity. And if you're already putting people on a battlemap you're not tracking something else with forced movement, just making use of what you are already tracking.

Forced movement is unlikely to show up in Grant Howitt one pagers -but there's no reason it can't show in something the weight of a PbtA game.