I think the party is doing well indeed. Especially since some are new to PF2e... and I tend to be running things almost completely by the books.
The whole flanking thing is really to make criticals easier more than to hit. For example, in the most recent attack by Telurion flanking would have made that a critical. Maybe in this case it won't matter but if this had happened in the first round of combat there would have been a chance to one-shot a powerful enemy.
I believe the biggest adjustment for players to make in PF2e is that in 5e (And others to a lesser extent) the goal is to maximize what your character can do both in game and in building your character. Nothing wrong with that... but not really the style of role playing I enjoy most. You can make Superhero players that don't work well in a group.
In PF2e the goal is to maximize both your character build, and tactics to make the whole party most effective... which is not always ideal for the character but can result in better results for the adventuring party. Group synergy takes center stage. Fantasic Four instead of Batman...
As I'm mentioned before, previous d20 games emphasized the character, PF2e emphasizes the group.
NOTE: Got to head out on a sales call, but will be back later this afternoon to update the game thread.
Hey gang, I really feel I might not be the 'target audience' for this game - I am not sure if it is the PF2 system, or the nature of the game itself, but... It is not resonating with me.
I understand and agree it makes sense to test the system 'as-is', but I am feeling too constrained with the constant back and forth about things which seem common sense to me, which I am being asked to accept because otherwise the balance will break. At the moment I cannot wrap my head around the absence of surprise or 'traditional' scouting, or the constrained logic of the exploration activities, or battle medicine, just to name a few. It all feels too rigid for me.
I will use a phrase which is not one of my favorites, but in this case translates perfectly what I feel - 'the rules are getting in the way of my game'. Maybe I am REALLY just an old grognard :P
So scranford, thank you very much for taking the time to run me through this introduction to the PF2 ruleset, and to put up with my constant comments, perhaps not always in the best tone. My hat is off to you sir, for DMing the game, for taking the time to set up OBR and the Discord, and for always being thorough in your explanation of the rules. Apologies if I might have come across as an ass sometimes.
To the players, thank you for putting up with a noob which might have seem adversarial more than once, and his many tactical mistakes :P
Hope we can chalk this one as a 'no harm, no foul' occurrence, that PF2 might grown on me in the future, and to see you around the boards.
Wish you a great game!
Telurion
I'm sorry to hear that you've decided this game is not for you. Telurion's story was just beginning, and he was to play a major part in the next part of the adventure.
I understand though. I would rather crawl naked through hot coals than play Pathfinder 1 or D&D 3.0/3.5 again. I do find it interesting that you find the system constrained while I find it opens up the opportunities so much more than earlier systems... especially as your character levels up... I do agree however that if you feel this way you should probably play a less codified game with more loose situational rules. I don't have the patience to run such a game however, and PF2e is the game I feel most closely offers me black & White solutions. Still perception is reality.
Also, to everyone I'm giving a lot of discussion about alternate strategies as we play this module. Plese don't think this is an attempt to tell you how you should have approached the situation or played your character. Nobody has done anything wrong, or even non-ideal... I'm just trying to point out some other options that those less versed in PF2 might not have considered. I had already decided that by the time everyone leveled up I would knock off the alternate strategy conversations unless specifically asked.
Now for the next step. Is everyone else ready to keep moving forward? I don't want to invest a lot more effort in the game if everyone feels the same way... but am eager to continue the story if everyone else is still on board.
We need to address the absence of a front liner for this game. If anyone has someone, they might suggest please feel free to let me know and we can extend an invite.
Telurion: Are you Okay with me botting Telurion till this series of encounters are past? If we find someone interested, would you be Okay with them taking Telurion over or would you prefer they make a new church acolyte to build the next part of the story around?
Thanks, and hope to see you on the boards in other games.
I’m here.
I don’t think there’s anything particularly wrong with the group, I’d just like to see Telurion, or the front line, get some support. A fighter doesn’t *need* help, but if they get it, fights will finish a lot faster and we will have more hit points at the end, particularly in wave combats. And flanking goes both ways, with both participants doing damage and providing targets. I guess I don’t see a frontliner working solo sustainably.
As for Adayil’s sub-optimal choices - I’ve never in any of the combats, used my Wilding Word Hex Cantrip that makes foes get at least a -2 to hit me on anything less than a Critical Success on a save…
And targeting a skeleton first with a slashing sword as a non-martial, and then a Reflex-save spell is pretty silly. Even…non-ideal. You have to be able to be critical in such analysis - I think I would benefit from such critique even if it “hurts” my “ego”.
Still, I find it difficult that I somehow filled a 15’ cone with flame and they…avoided it. I think the spell should be flavored differently, and not a cone shape. Or if it is a cone shape, change the save.
They just rolled very high. Still would have taken damage on a normal save… but if you review the info the RK revealed they are also resistant to fire damage… and BTW not immune to precision damage.
I'm game to continue, and I'm bummed Telurion is leaving the game.
As for the cone spell, that can happen in any edition. It will happen in our favor, too. We'll make crit saves and nothing will happen to us. It feels bad at the moment, sure, but it balances out over time.
Yeah, I didn’t pay enough attention to any RK, which is a cardinal sin.
And sure, I could crit save a reflex to avoid a cone of fire…but…how?!? Narratively I couldn’t drop prone because mechanically that is an Action. I guess I could have dropped and stood again lithe as a panther - so you see the tension between deterministic “rules as mechanic”’and fluid narrative-as-sense. I have no problem with the skeletons crit-saving - that is in the rules. But where the spell says it affects a 15’ cone and then provides a Basic Reflex save - that is weird. I would rather imagine it as a Fortitude save to bear the brunt of the flame and notdie. Still, I knowingly chose the spell, so I’m not arguing the fall of the cards by any means.
I essentially did everything wrong tactically a caster can do. Waded into melee. With the wrong
damage type. Targeted the wrong save. Again, with the wrong damage type. Didn’t use the one cantrip available to me to protect my AC.
And then complained about Caks. Priceless.
Yeah I think the undead precision immunity has thankfully been done away with…
Telurion: Are you Okay with me botting Telurion till this series of encounters are past? If we find someone interested, would you be Okay with them taking Telurion over or would you prefer they make a new church acolyte to build the next part of the story around?
Yes of course, no worries from my end on this.
Anybody have any suggestions on who you'd like to take over Telurion's character? I thought I'd check here before going out to the boards in general to recruit.
Also, I just PM'd Daniel / Caks. Has anyone heard from him?
Dang It! Looks like we've lost another. Caks has decided this isn't the game system for him either. Do you guys want to go on or call it a day. Apparently, I'm not really good at player retention.
I do put a lot of work into running a game, so don't mind recruiting a couple new victims... but if you guys aren't really committed, I don't want to push it onwards.
I think it's a shame... but some people just can't get over the mindset from earlier versions, and don't like such a codified rule set. I believe if they'd give it more time, they'd like it... but everyone needs to have fun.
As I said: I’m here!
To be honest Scranford, having a codified ruleset is one thing, but having absolutely no movement from you (apart from the Defend exploration tweak) also doesn’t help. I love PF2, but it is by no means perfect nor set in stone. And every group is different and will require different approaches to the ruleset. The difference between Alorea/Brainiac’s game, this game and GM NABU’s game (that I am in with you) with regard to combats shows that.
My advice would be to either find a group that are absolutely going to play RAW, or cater to the players you do have. I don’t mean “cater to every overpowered, player-centric entitled whim” but “listen to what the players are comfortable with and try to accommodate them where it seems reasonable”. I’m sure some GM’s might see those two statements to be the same thing… Personally I find your approach to rules and rulings rigid, but I can work with it as I understand what you are trying to achieve and can play the game under that premise.
It isn’t going to break the game to houserule all over the place - PF2 is absolutely deadly, and tweaking the system here or there is ‘t going to make it deadlier or less deadly, just more fun to play. It’s also in my opinion, elegant in that the tweaks you do make are completely within the stress limit of your game. You won’t “break the game”. How could you? And any change you *do* make that folx find doesn’t work for your table can be undone.
Now I think you want RAW to keep complexity down - a straight “what it says on the tin” game with no fiddly houserules etc. For time, mental health and relaxation - to just run the game as is. And I respect and condone that. But it won’t be easy all the time.
I’m grateful for all the work you have done in: starting the game; working on our backstories; running the game; making OBR work; and providing tactical advice. So I’m not quitting. Even if you want me to! ;)
I do feel partly responsible for Daniel leaving the game. I’ll send him a message.
I'm also more than willing to go on. I'm very much enjoying the story as the other characters, and if Caks and/or Telurion, wanted to come back at some point, I'd be 100 percent fine with that.
With my game you're in, I think it was something like six people dropped at varied points before I got the core group that we have now. Between IRL and getting a feel for GM/players, in this type of format, some player loss is normal I feel. I don't feel you should beat yourself over the head, and I do hope that both players come back in the future.
While I would disagree with Adayil that PF2 is absolutely deadly, I am also cognizant of the fact that is a table-by-table experience. I tend to not run killer games, and I don't tend to play in games where the GM seems to be out to kill players, so my games tend to be less deadly than some. I like the death of a PC to be an always there possibility, but I also hope that is a rare occurrence. My experience in the system has not shown it to be more deadly than any other, but I am willing to concede that other people may have had different experiences, and to them, it may very well be deadly.
Just in case it is not clear, I do not see this as a killer game. I see a very well-done amount of danger and am very much enjoying the feel of the game.
However, I would agree with Adayil that you can be rigid with house rules. For instance, I do not think the weapon house rule is a good one. I don't think it's needed or narratively helpful. I think it was made to fix things that are not broken and is overly punitive to the PCs, and I am not impacted by it at all. I would not play a weapon-based character if Lil died and I made a replacement PC.
Overall, I'd give the game an A. As Adayil said, thanks for all the work you've put in, and I very much want to see the game continue. You're doing a great job overall, in my opinion, even if there are some bumps in the road from time to time.
I'm still here as well. Your style of GM-ing is different from my own, but I'm enjoying the game. My free time has been sorely lacking lately, though, but I'm trying to keep up as best I can.
I'll agree that the inflexibility with some of the rulings is more harsh than necessary. Like Lil, though, the weapon house rule doesn't affect my character.
I do want the game to keep going if we can recruit some new players.
Thanks. With three staying I’ll recruit. Probably tomorrow and with an update. Today is Tabletop game day.
For the new players here is the link to the Discord Server for this game. We don't use it a lot, but since it pings to let me know if there is a new post it can be used for messages that require something quick, or to share images.
I notice that you are having the players act in order. Some other GMs (myself included) just let the players put their actions in, and the GM resolves them as they go along, rather than other players waiting for the resolution of players with higher initiative.
If you want to run it the current way, that's fine, though.
I notice that you are having the players act in order. Some other GMs (myself included) just let the players put their actions in, and the GM resolves them as they go along, rather than other players waiting for the resolution of players with higher initiative.
If you want to run it the current way, that's fine, though.
That probably works with most game systems... but since PF2e requires party cooperation for most of the actions, each character's actions are much more independent on teamwork. With Criticals happening at a greater rate every plus 1 or plus 2 to rolls make a huge difference, so it's very important to act in the correct order. There are things you can do to change the order.
1. Delaying an action lets you hold any actions till you wish and insert them just before another acts. This moves your initiative to the round you act.
2. Holding an action lets you use (2) actions to hold either a (1) action activity, or a reaction, but you remain where you are in the initiative.
Welcome to the two new players.
Welcome Ira and Ironperenti.
You'll see some tactical changes from Caks!
Looking through the discussion thread now.
Still under construction but in a workable state.
Just to confirm, I walked into the fight carrying 8 pts of damage, correct?
Also, would I confirm this guy is a good councilor?
You picked up the damage this round. You were fully healed, but the enemy went first in the initiative and just bit you.
You can confirm that while not loved he seems to be respected and admired.
So of course my initial reaction was to move to flank, attack and then use RK. On the other hand am also trying to play Adayil as…evolving. And to let Caks do some flanking.
But given I’m unsure what you actually *use* for particular creatures for RK - I have Arcana and Occultism both at +7, but if undead are Religion I have…+0 I opted not to do that.
So I tried spellcasting….rolling two 1’s. Versus a Basic Fort save.
Should have gone with a flank and a bash with my falchion after all.
I forgot to have Telurion make a Fortitude Save after he was bitten. I'll go with things for now... but if anyone else gets bitten fortune will not favor you... Ba...ha...ha...
I took my own list of skills which did not include religion unless you need it to. Personally, I did not intend to pursue the paladin dip but reflected the desire to help others by taking medicine.
@Lil
Nice catch on the skeleton tactics.
We'll assume the reactive strike was claws... which would still hit. :-). Instead of raising shield, he would have drawn his sword. And noted on the shortbow. He won't make that mistake next round.
As you can see, I often don't post on weekends. Crazy morning, but I should get a post up by early afternoon at the latest.
BTW... The DC on the Perception roll was DC 16.
SB, I have a setting question as I do not know much about this setting. As the game progresses, how often will we have access to cities and/or other hubs where consumable items of whatever level we happen to be at the time are readily available? I'm trying to plan ahead a little for future feat choices as well as FA decisions, and that would handy general information.
If you follow my plan there will be a fascinating city in your near future. I play open world... but have an idea of offering a tasty tidbit for the group to follow.
The game is also full of giant cities as well, so that shouldn't be a problem. I'm kind of winging it as we play.
I will be away Wednesday and Thursday.
BTW... The DC on the Perception roll was DC 16.
Telurion rolled a Nat 20 + 6 for Perception...
Telurion rolled a Nat 20 + 6 for Perception...
BTW... The DC on the Perception roll was DC 16.
Sure you can read the earlier spoiler.
Sorry, I'm used to the spoilers being labeled such as...
I'll take a look, thanks.
Yeah, that's how I usually do it, I just forgot this time so I retro'd the DC.
Normally the rules for cover are that you draw a line from the center of your square to the creature with cover and if it passes through an object, you have cover or greater cover if it's a solid object. However, in this case I'm going to rule that since you know Lil is there you are able to strain your neck from the corner of your square and see the corner of hers and I'll allow you to perform the heal.
Cover / Line of site rules
In Pathfinder 2nd Edition, determining cover involves considering the environment and 3D space. Here’s how it works:
Basic Rule: If you’re uncertain or need precision, draw a line from the center of your space to the center of the target’s space. If this line passes through any terrain or object that would block the effect, the target has standard cover (or greater cover if the obstruction is extreme or the target has Taken Cover) 123.
Remember, the rules provide a guideline, but in complex situations, use your discretion based on the specifics of the environment.
NOTE: Going forward I'll just rule on this one from the situation. In my home game I rule that for this type of situation if you can draw a line from the center of your square to any corner of the target square then the target has cover... but since Lil isn't actively trying to take cover this is the way I would rule.
NOTE(2): I'll be back in front of the computer later this afternoon and will advance the game. This week and next are kind of busy... so I'm posting when I can.
NOTE(3): Remember that Rufio gave the party (7) Scrolls of first level heal when he tasked you with going to the Councilors rescue. I believe either Alorea or Adayil can use these scrolls, but not sure how you split them up. Scrolls act just like the spell... but require an action to remove from the bandolier... or scroll case. So, you could pull out and still cast a (2) action heal in one round. Or pull one as a third action the round before then use a three action heal the next round.
NOTE(4): I think it's funny that Pathfinder 2e has rules for everything... but the party has already required me to make up (2) New rules... One for jumping willingly out of a window, and one for casting a heal spell with cover. I'll make a area of the campaign info to codify these rules so we can stay consistant.
I don't think that rules were needed for something like jumping out of a window for two reasons.
One: Fall damage, like a lot of minor hindrances in previous D&D versions and clones, was significantly reduced. It's half of the distance that you fall, base, and there's a level 1 skill feat that cuts 10 feet off of that. It's not much damage at all if a player is smart about it.
Two: it is so easy to reduce that even further. Many classes and ancestries can reduce fall damage from orbit to zero by mid-game, and quite a few ancestries (I think 2 of the 6 in Howl of the Wild alone have ancestry feats that eat into it at level 1.
As a simple for instance, I could have taken Wind Pillow as an ancestry feat for Lil, and it stacks with Catfall, so if I had done that, she could have fallen 20 feet and taken zero damage, at level 1, with no real sacrifices made.
Given that, I think they spent time working on broader rules than something niche that doesn't apply often. I mean, fall 10 feet, eat five damage, continue with your turn is just simple. You don't need a deeper rule for that.
I sometimes think that people try and find ways to complicate simple stuff. I'm not saying you do that, SB, just in general on the boards and Reddit people have a tendency to make the simple hard!
Perhaps these rules aren't strictly necessary... but I strive for consistency so if I've made a ruling one way I want to ensure that I apply it the same way every time.
And I do wear the hat of complicating things... however I see them as simplifying them as there is an order to how things are done. I will make some rulings... as I did above... but the major reason I like PF2 is that there are rules, so I don't have to make judgement calls as often.
Different strokes for different folks... but you know if you decide to jump off a building or have someone make a saving throw requiring spell saves you'll know how it's going to work before trying it. :-)
@Alorea... I like to add small things to enhance the "buy in" of the characters particularly when it comes to gods worshiped, or sources of mystical power, or organizations joined.
What do you think about me giving you an extra point of healing when you use one of your Divine Font spells in exchange for making the person your healing clumsy 1 for one round?
Works for me! *Hic!*
My thoughts on PF2 “rules”:
Firstly, you are completely incorrect - PF2 most definitely does not have rules “for everything”. I would go so far as to say that this shows a major error in your approach - even contemplating that the ruleset can cover every minutiae of agency and activity and your desire to be free from making adjudications actively predisposes you toward seeing “rulings” as anathematic. I much prefer rulings (based as they are, on the ruleset), as that shows me the GM is attendant, flexible and most of all, approachable in our shared experience.
Secondly, you can’t have it both ways - you can’t try to have everything absolutely RAW and then make up houserules. Admit that the ruleset is by its very nature flexible and actively designed to be so. Don’t see “rulings” as adverse or even onerous. I personally want you to make such rulings (as when Alorea could see Lil) - where they both make sense narratively, further player engagement and enjoyment and (more for PbP) speed up gameplay/remove inertia. And as you say, rulings go both ways - they aren’t just to be used in the players’ favor. And, like all laws, rulings can set precedents. And become, if you like….rules.
Lil is up in the gameplay thread.
re: healing.
That is a terrible trade-off.
The person healed gets 1 extra HP. The person healed loses 1 point of AC, loses one to Reflex saves, Ranged attack rolls, damage rolls if a Thief rouge, and every single dexterity-based skill check.
While that would be bad for one person, look at the amount of times in this wave fight Alorea has 3 action healed the whole party. We'd all be rebuffed, and more likely to be hit and need more healing, as a result.
I'm all for adding flavor aspects for divine worship, but this would be a straight-up debuff to in-combat healing from our best healer that would often lead to a cycle of needing more healing.
Now, if this was an opt-in for the person being healed, that would be different. It also might need to be 1 point per rank, or even a little more. Or, if it was something like if Alorea made a Potion of Healing
it would heal more, but have that rider, it would allow the person healed to say, "Ok, I think the debuff is safe to take this round."
I'm not going to argue every point of the game. If you don't want to use the ability don't... but you can find the worst-case scenario for every option, without looking at the best case. If there are 20 allies within range, you just healed an extra 20 points of damage. It's not required... so if you don't want to do it don't. I'm attempting to add flavor to the game a bit because quite frankly my favorite part of RPG is to go beyond the rules and flavor the characters.
It might seem counter to people's judgement of Pathfinder... but to me GM'ing which I've done since 1977. This "Rules Heavy" system is the easiest for me to run ever. While it doesn't have a rule for everything the structure of the rules allows for easy judgement calls based on the rules that are there.
In regard to the falling damage rules. Sure, I could go RAW but to me jumping off a 20' roof instead of falling uncontrolled is different... I don't care if you're an Olympic gymnast, or a grandmother jumping should have a mechanical advantage over falling. An unconscious person laying in a square not actively trying to keep concealed should be easier to target with a spell. So, while these are judgement calls by me, in my mind I need to use the mechanical structure of the game to have them make sense.
If any of you feel I'm being unfair, then feel free to speak up... but if I make a rule that you simply disagree with or wouldn't do in your game then that's a different story.
My thoughts on PF2 “rules”:
Firstly, you are completely incorrect - PF2 most definitely does not have rules “for everything”. I would go so far as to say that this shows a major error in your approach - even contemplating that the ruleset can cover every minutiae of agency and activity and your desire to be free from making adjudications actively predisposes you toward seeing “rulings” as anathematic. I much prefer rulings (based as they are, on the ruleset), as that shows me the GM is attendant, flexible and most of all, approachable in our shared experience.
Secondly, you can’t have it both ways - you can’t try to have everything absolutely RAW and then make up houserules. Admit that the ruleset is by its very nature flexible and actively designed to be so. Don’t see “rulings” as adverse or even onerous. I personally want you to make such rulings (as when Alorea could see Lil) - where they both make sense narratively, further player engagement and enjoyment and (more for PbP) speed up gameplay/remove inertia. And as you say, rulings go both ways - they aren’t just to be used in the players’ favor. And, like all laws, rulings can set precedents. And become, if you like….rules.
I'm going to put this post into the "Intent is easy to misinterpret in print compared to face to face.
Telling me I'm completely incorrect to a broad statement isn't acceptable. Telling me you disagree is fine... but confronting me telling me I'm WRONG isn't constructive criticism it's a personal attack. I think I've tried to be very fair in every situation, and even given the PC's the benefit of a doubt while staying within the rules of the game.
I will be on vacation from 6/17-6/30! I won't be posting until I get back to work on Monday, 7/1, after which I'm sure I'll have a lot of catching up to do. Please bot Alorea as necessary during this time.