AsmodeusDM's page

There is a REALLY cool monster in there; "Lurker in Light." Small nimble skirmisher fey, that hides/invisible in bright light and summons other fey.

Except, as is a common issue, they put the encounter/fight in a 15'x15' room. Literally 9 squares. Half the party couldn't even get LOS to the monster because they were all standing in the next room and coudln't get in.

PF2 has all this new mobility and feats that allow you to do all these cool tactical things; but they get this trend (it even goes back to Rise of the Runelords) of sticking these encounters in these tiny rooms.

I get that in REAL life; a 15'x15' office would be totally acceptable; and anything larger as "just an office" would be unrealistic. But the interest of the GAME are being sacrificed here for more verisimilitude here and it just never works out.

Instead of a cool dynamic fight; it felt like a bunch of people trying to squeeze into an already crowded elevator.

*womp*womp*

Slurks don't live in ponds, normally. The slurk in the pond is a sort of easter egg to the Moat House in Temple of Elemental Evil, but I also wanted to put the slurk in terrain that's not 100% to its advantage;

I definitely thought it was a strong ToEE vibe; so happy to see it was deliberate homage!

The only thing, of course, is that resource constrained classes are once again forgotten. Not a single offensive scroll in the portion I've actually read. That is really something Paizo should account for: Scrolls (and maybe extra reagents for Alchemists) help a lot in a dungeon where you are supposed to chain encounters.

I should also add that I'm including my house rule for this solution as well.

Quick background: I much prefer open-world, sandbox, West Marches style games. The modern-day "AP" with its fairly tight narrative and pretty railroaded-design isn't much my thing (to play or to DM). That being said I do appreciate the fact that, especially for newer player [as my current group is], you end up with a much more cohesive story that kind of plays itself out on auto-pilot.

My main problem with narrative/storyline based adventures is the issue of playing the game vs. participating in the story. Namely; being a random dice-based game sometimes your PCs just run out of steam and resources OR as in PF2... you should really really really heal after a fight but just can't justify the hours it may take to heal up when in the middle of a climatic series of events.

My solution has been:

1. I use Stamina and Resolve points (as in the GMG), but I'm not sure that I even come close to using them the way as written.

- As usual, PCs hit points are split between Hit Points and Stamina
- Each PC gets 4 Resolve points, as they get higher level I give them some additional resolve points (currently they have 5).

- In "Exploration" mode; a PC can spend a resolve point to recover ALL their stamina (this does NOT take 10 minutes as per the book; rather it's pretty much if you are not in initative-order you can just spend 1 and be at full).

- In Encounter mode; a PC as a single-action can spend a resolve point and recover HALF their stamina; as a two-action can spend 2 resolve points and recover ALL their stamina.

***** major changes begin *****

- In Exploration mode; a PC can spend a resolve point to recover spell slots equal to their level. This means a level-6 character can spend a resolve point and recover 6 total levels worth of spell slots (two 3rds for example, or 4 1sts and a 2nd).

- During Encounter mode; a PC can spend a resolve point to recover spell slots equal to half their level; or two resolve points and two-action to recover spell slots equal to their level.

- In exploration mode; a PC can spend a resolve point to "reset" up to 2 daily style abilities or powers (including magic items).

- A PC can always spend a Hero Point in place of a Resolve point.

- Certain effects; notably Traps, do not go after Stamina, but rather reduce or wear down hit points first.

- Resolve points are AWARDED based on the players grit, determination and well... Resolve. Basically it's like a momentum bar, if the players are driven and determined and are gaining confidence as they accomplish their mission... I will reward them each with a resolve point. If during a dungeon exploration, say they discover an ancient shrine to Sarenrae and un-desecrate it... the peace they find may grant them all a Resolve point.

Basically if the PCs are staying focused and on-task I will keep awarding them resolve points which... essentially... allows them to adventure forever. Meanwhile the PCs feel very much in charge of their resources and know that as long as they stay "on-mission" they will continue to be rewarded with Resolve points; so it's a form of self-reinforced railroading :D

I find it's partially the fault of the +10/-10 crit succ/fail system. Every single-person boss or trap can kill easily because of this system, and it seems to benefit the monsters more than the PC's.

This is unless the combat is running a lot of mooks, which isn't always popular due to the GM management, even if many-enemy combat is likely the most fun part of P2E because it's the only time you feel powerful.

I love the 10/10 crit system; but for the exact second reason you described...making the PCs feel like badasses.

I've (20+ RPG vet) been running Rise of the Runelords converted by me to PF2 for a group of new players (1 year only 5e). I pretty much avoid anything more than 1 level than the player's like the plague; I frequently include numerous encounters where the PCs are fighting 6 to 8 monsters 3 or 4 levels lower than they are. They are absolutely loving it.

Contrast this with when PF2 first came out and I ran Plaguestone for my usual group of vets. It turned pretty much everyone off of the system; the high ACs and DCs of foes, the constant critting and need for multi-hour recovery periods after EACH fight... no one felt powerful or cool and many of my players passed on the system once we completed the adventure.

To further elaborate... in the aforementioned featureless waste.. a ROGUE using Avoid Notice would still roll Stealth for initiative and therefore so long as they beat their opponent's initiative would get the SUPRISE ATTACK class feature bonus?

Or in other words; if a player uses Avoid Notice and the encounter starts say in a long empty corridor; and the PC goes first in initiative... are they hidden?

The rules suggest that you "might get a bonus to your Stealth check if you have cover" implying you don't actually NEED cover to use Avoid Notice.

So what happens mechanically? And what does that look like in the fiction?

As well as seconding much of what Mathmuse & thenobledrake wrote, I'll add that even some of the earliest "dungeon crawls" had dynamic enemies. If you stirred up the hornet's nest you fled, sometimes pursued, sometimes with preparations waiting for your return. This is one of the reasons many of the earliest DnD archenemies were Chaotic Evil, so that they wouldn't coordinate so much that they'd wipe the floor of the PCs and there could be separate factions in the megaplex that wouldn't run to the aid of another. In a handful of modules, writers accounted for PCs pitting certain groups against each other (though not required to) or what might happen if PCs freed some slaves. Small notes here and there told a bigger picture that I don't see much anymore, likely since many chapters of modules & APs are built around taking one or two sessions in a straightforward manner, even megadungeon Emerald Spire where there's little continuity between floors (though some).

There might be different patterns at different times of day (usually just two, awake & asleep), different stations when the alarm's raised (not just movement, but perhaps tables turned over for cover or a lowered portcullis), and wandering monsters that represented an active ecosystem/city/fortress (including not only patrols & pets, but in one case monstrous children out raiding a pantry or the leader caught without his minions as he hurries to get something (oops!)).

And not all enemies were kill, kill, kill.
Some specifically could be reasoned with, or had certain points where their morale would break or they'd turn docile due to a warmonger leader dying. You might even find a traitor or spy in their midst, that is if you didn't slaughter them too as part of the pack. Rewards (especially from freed slaves) often came in the form of debts owed, fame, friendships, potential alliances, and the like.
You want Elfin Chain? Go save an upper class Elf. :)

You've basically just re-written the OSR manifesto :D

I haven't fudged a single die roll in over 20 years. It's not actually as necessary as many people view it as being. The key is in the choices that lead up to die rolls. In my experience, a lot of GMs will make choices with as much lethal efficiency as they can - monsters always at peak coordination, focusing fire on a particular PC, and the like - and then they get to a die roll that either they fudge or a character dies, so they fudge, and they don't recognize that they could have avoided needing to fudge that roll by making different choices at points before that die roll.

Simple stuff like playing monsters inefficiently on purpose - attack who they are "mad at" rather than who would be the "best" target, do things that fit the personality of the monster even if they aren't a "smart" tactical option at the moment, and so on - also letting your players know that you won't be fudging, so if their character dies it's not your own fault helps. Basically, when your goal is to not fudge, it's a pretty easy thing to figure out how to accomplish.

I think that's pretty solid all-around excellent advice.

I think my "problem" with PF2 is that RPGs have come a long way in the last couple of years. Due to the huge popularity of Crit Role and other online games it seems more than ever that traditional games are trying hard to shift towards the more narrative playstyle that the indie space has been doing for years.

Now I've been playing Fate and DWorld and Monsterhearts forever; but it was always sorta a well separated bin: here are my narrative focused indie games... here are my trad d20-based dungeon murderhobo games...

It seems that WoTC and Paizo have been trying to "catch up" so to speak and making their games more narrative (see Inspiration and Hero Points along with several other elements like Incap); and while I applaud their actions I still feel like there are a lot of growing pains to go through.

As an additional note to all this, even if there isn't a strict time pressure in a broad sense, the players knowing that you might adjust other encounters by their delays.

For instance, the players get in a fight and there are a few rooms around them. If enemies behind those doors hear the combat there are a few possible reactions. They might come charging out and join in the fray. They might decide the original group should be able to handle it and just be conscious of the players approach. They might ignore it(under paid mook, overconfident demon). Or they might prepare.

Its that last case that can be used for time pressure if the players know its a possibility. If the players walk into a new area immediately after a fight, they might find some enemies scrambling into more defensive positions without much change. But if they take at least a few minutes, the enemies might be bunkered down and have some environmental/defensive bonuses, might have called in support, or just have caused a bit tougher of a fight. Players don't need to know for sure when this happens, just an awareness that the world isn't static in the spots they can't actively see can express that.

I think that is all very reasonable; given 5-10 minutes. But half-hour? An hour?

It's just such a wonky amount of time; 5e has this problem too with it's short rest being an hour.

In a dungeon delving based game I think it makes PERFECT sense; in that genre of game the Random Encounter via wandering monster is still a thing and the PCs are kinda operating on their own anyways.

But in most adventures, especially Pathfinder, you are in a far more dynamic and time sensitive situation than your typical dungeon.

I provide DCs and consequences up front and roll dice in the open, because my players don't like the idea of rolls being "fudged" in their favor.

In general - and relevant to the topic - I've never found it hurts the play experience to make as much information as reasonable available to the players to act on.

That includes rolls, DCs, and expectations on how much time and resources they should be investing in healing between encounyers.

I really respect this for a few reasons.

#1 It eliminates the soft fudge.

A lot of time GMs are quiety fudging and they don't even know it; a soft fudge is where you roll the die in the open or you openly announce the DC to the table before the PC rolls. Seems fudge free right? But.. if you also don't clearly state what's as stake it's still a natural tendency (even subconsciously) to fudge the roll.

I see this happen at tables all the time.

PC: "Okay; I'm going to try to wrest control of the ritual from the circle of demons!"

GM: "Okay that sounds pretty risky; it's going to be DC 25!"

Other PC: "Yikes, what happens if he fails!?"

GM: "heh,heh... you don't want to find out! mwhahah"

PC rolls; gets 26 "Yes!"

GM: "whoa; just barely! Good thing too; if you had failed your soul would have been sucked into the Abyss!"

Other PC: "Awesome ; that was epic!"

This is an illusion. The GM has both sides of his bets covered; if the PC passes the check we can pretend like if they failed the roll their soul would have been consumed by the Abyss; so then they seem heroic and a badass. But IF they do fail; the GM hasn't set the stakes so high that they are forced into a corner; instead they can mitigate it and just turn it into a bunch of damage or some Will save or something else not nearly as threatening.

So yeah; setting clear expectations with the PC about what will happen should they pass AND should they not pass: is for me, critical to making proper informed and meaningful decisions.

#2 meaningful and informed decisions.

It might not be very simulationist, but I think at least being up front with the PCs about how much time and healing they need is WAY better than turning everything into Quantum ogres and Quantum timeclocks.

I'd much rather a GM "break the 4th wall" and have a real meaningful chat with us allowing us to make proper decision.

e.g.

*fight ends PCs are kinda beaten up*

PC: "Should we heal up real quick?"

Other PC: "Probably that fight was tough"

GM: "Actually; you know what even now the circle of demons is preparing for the final ritual; there's no time for you to rest"

PC: "Okay! Onward we go!"

Is there anyway the PCs could have actually had that information? No; but like a movie cutaway to a shot of the villain letting us know their plans; if this kinda of narrative game is one that you want to play then I think you should embrace the genre.

One thing thats important to mangung healing mechanics now is setting expectations for your party so that they - and just importantly, you - know what the Time Pressure is.

For me, theres approx 5 general states, expressed in terms of Princess Peril -

Generally, as long as the GM and the players understand the current level of tension, you can maintain appropriate tension throughout the adventuring day.

I'm right there with you; so my question is for the first 2 princess danger states how do you reconcile the need for recovery (and it's associated time cost) with the need of the timeliness of the plot

I think that the truth is that many may GMs fudge, a lot, and when they say "their games are fine" they are in fact fudging, almost constantly so that the game goes as expected.

I'm not even saying that in a derogatory way; if that works for you and your group that's fine. But it does irk me when people say a game is balanced, but those selfsame people are always fudging dice or encounters or timing so that it better fits with the "evolving narrative"

I'm totally fine by the way with a game where the GM "cheats" or fudges; I play a lot of super hero games and basically before the game or session I'll lay it out for the players

"Look guys we are doing genre here, you guys are the super heroes and this is a pretty light-hearted game so if there are people trapped in a burning building and you roll low, I'm not going to be like 'they all die', we'll figure out a story reason and appropriate consequence (likely to your hero) and move on with the game from there.

What I do NOT like is games where GMs secretly fudge and manipulate behind the scene; where they act like their game is RAW and play-it-as-it-lies-let-the-dice-fall-where-they-may but are actually fudging constantly on skill DCs and ACs and saves and hps, etc, etc.. Those games seem very disingenuous to me.

I've noticed that for some weird reason people take "If your players can heal between every encounter, that's fine, it won't break the game's balance" as "Your players should be healed after every encounter, otherwise it breaks the game's balance"

Its like its dead set in our minds that it has to be one or the other, either you HAVE to whittle them down, or they HAVE to be fully rested.

In reality, the game just has so many ways to heal in combat, mitigate damage, avoid exposing yourself, afflicting creatures with crowd control, or simply being able to take enough hits that being a little down on HP isn't a dramatic shift unless you get really unlucky in a whole slew of ways.

It's something the GM should pay attention to somewhat, but not something that can be pinned down as a science of how every encounter should start.

Better than making the PCs feel like they can't dawdle because monsters might wander by and attack them, is making the PCs decide that they shouldn't dawdle because there's some narrative pressure that suggests wasting time is a bad idea ultimately.

Right I agree; but like at what point in a sequence of exciting events would a 10 minute rest let alone a 30 or 60 minute rest make sense.

Movies do this all the time; it's a useful pacing tool. Look at a movie like the Matrix where Neo and Trinity go to save Morpheus.

Combat #1: Lobby shoot-out scene

Pause/Rest: Elevator scene

Combat #2: Rooftop battle highlighted by battle at the end with Agent

Pause/Rest: Neo does a long sigh, Trinity helps him back up. Brief dialog. Trinity gets new helicopter power

"Combat #3": Helicopter mini-gun attack/Neo's leap to save Morpheus.

But these weren't 10-minute or 20-minute breaks; at most they were 1 minute maybe 2. But in my mind if this were a game, those characters were "resting" and "regaining hp"

Numerous replies have argued that the time requirement itself becomes a tool; useful to have the PCs make interesting decisions. i.e. "if the PCs take too long, X happens"

My question to you then is how to appropriately communicate to the players the nature of the decisions they are making and the appropriate consequences therein?

Or put another way...

We get in a bad fight we are pretty roughed up; we spend 10 minutes to heal up; but the Medicine checks don't go our way so we spend another 10 minutes to make another series of checks and then we press on hurriedly. Moving through a series of antechambers we burst in through the main temples double doors; there laying in a spreading pool of crimson is the slain princess with the cackling evil priest above her.

"What!" one of the PCs cries out.

"Sorry," says the GM. "You guys took 20 mins to get here, if it had been 10 minutes it would've been a totally different story"

"Lame, how were we supposed to know that?"

...

And yes that's an absurd example; but the PCs have a point: how are they supposed to know if they have 10 minutes or 30 or 0?

Unless of course the nature of time in your game is completely arbitrary and the princess won't die until...well the DM just decides she does.

In which case your time management isn't actually important and doesn't matter because what really matters is whether or not the GM decides she dies or not.

Are you familiar with GNS theory?

tl;dr: RPGs exist in three dimensions: gamist, narrativist, and simulationist.

It's easy to be a great RPG if you focus on just one element, it's possible to do two; it's damn near impossible to be all three.

D&D/PF is often accused of being a mediocre game because it attempts to do all three. PF1 was pretty solidly a gamist/simulationist game... in PF2 they have definitely embraced Narrativist structures (such as hero points and other game-running philosophies) but they haven't released all their simulationist roots and so the game does have some wonkiness as it's trying to exist in all three elements at once.

AsmodeusDM wrote:

Thanks for that link; it's definitely interesting to see that point of view coming from the creative director.

Coming to PF2 from systems like PbtA and FitD; it's interesting to see these ideas expressed in a d20 based game that doesn't have many of the systems that help support that style of play (Hero Points come close).

This is actually a point I have brought up in several threads. I much prefer styles of play like those driven by PbtA-style games or Fate. While I think they could've gone further with explicit narrative mechanics, like in those systems, they have definitely made progress in that direction.

Hero points, failing forward, narrative focus, roll-only-when-failure-is-interesting, etc.

I don't think this assumption is consistent with the creative direction of the game.

Upon further reading that thread it seems to me that James Jacobs is saying:

- You can make your encounters easier using weak/elite templates
- if you, as a new DM, messed up and made an encounter too tough on accident you can cheat a little bit because that's your bad...
- BUT, you should try to get better as a DM so you don't have to do that anymore.

So what you call the creative direction of the game seems more to be like a "you messed up GM, learn the system better so you don't keep making mistakes"

Thanks for that link; it's definitely interesting to see that point of view coming from the creative director.

Coming to PF2 from systems like PbtA and FitD; it's interesting to see these ideas expressed in a d20 based game that doesn't have many of the systems that help support that style of play (Hero Points come close).

I don't think this assumption is consistent with the creative direction of the game.

If that isn't how your group enjoys playing, that's fine. Just don't project your own assumptions on the design of the game. If you knock your party out, they don't have to die. They can be captured. Left for dead. Etc. If the story stopping in its tracks isn't interesting, then don't do that thing. Or do it in a way where stakes are maintained but something interesting continues to happen.

I agree; how do your PCs know how much time they "have"? Like if the PCs fight their way through a combat encounter and post-fight you have numerous PCs below 50% health how do they know if they have 10 minutes, 60 minutes, or zero minutes?

Do you utilize timelines in your adventures or all events/NPCs "quantum"?

Random encounters don't really add anything to the game, nor are they really an expected part of the game.

Sometimes the party doesn't have 10-60 minutes between fights. That's tension. That encourages them to try and minimize how much HP they're losing, to mitigate what they can, to try and heal as quick as they can. Enemies can react and do things.

My take away from numerous posts across the forums/reddits as well as my own play experience is that the game is very-much balanced on the "at full" hp model.

My assumptions is based on the idea of a fudge-less GM'd game. One where the GM isn't changing encounter difficulty on the fly in order to account for PCs who may have not rested, it's also based on the idea that the GM isn't fudging any random type encounters that may be happening (only having them hit when the PCs are relatively strong, holding back when they are really beat up).

Hit Points are a game currency/resource. You spend HP on stakes and time pressure. Sometimes you can't take a ton of time between fights to heal to full. Sometimes you have to gamble and risk HP to get things done more efficiently.

It is, fundamentally, a pacing mechanic.

The game isn't built on the idea "you are always at full HP". It is built on the idea that your HP at the start of a fight can be an expression of narrative tension.

Summary: If hit points are expected to be at or near full at the start of each encounter, and recovering hit points is a non-resource draining activity, why go through all the hoops of recovering them outside of combat?

I'm trying to understand what role hit point recovery has in the game right now. Previous editions of the game were built on the assumption that hit points would dwindle over the course of multiple encounters and that only magic (a limited resource) would allow characters to regain hit points (outside of long-term rest&recovery).

In 3.x/PF1 the CLW wand was "discovered" which was technically a "limited" resource (being a charged item) but was barely a cost past level 6 or 7.

At this point in the game you would typically heal up after each fight thus removing the entire "long term hit point ablation" that the game's resource management was built upon.

This proved somewhat useful, however, for many DMs and certain types of adventures (especially strong narrative-based adventures such as PF APs). The typical hit point depletion model was strongly tied to the dungeon-delving model of the game and didn't necessarily work well with narratively-driven adventures with tight deadlines and strong time-pressure.

The classic example of this would be the heroes assaulting the necromancer's tower before he can complete her ritual which will awaken all the city's dead. Even if the DM tried to properly balance the adventure around the PCs resources, it's entirely possible that due to the random nature of the d20-based game that the group just runs out of hit points before the final fight vs. the necromancer and either has to go into a fight that they know they will lose, or go home and sleep for 8 hours while the city falls to ruin.

Enter PF2 where-in they make 2 important realization and design decision:

- Given any opportunity to do so; PCs will heal to full after every fight. This just makes strong game sense.

- By assuming the PCs are at full hit points it actually makes the adventure designer/DMs job a lot easier. 1. you can design encounters easier because you know the PCs will be at full hp and don't have to try to account for how weakened/depleted they will be. 2. it's easier to pace your adventures because you no longer have to worry about your PCs having to leave your adventure location in the middle of their heroics to go back to town and sleep for 8 hours which often strains credibility and creates all sorts of headaches to try to manage deadlines and what all the NPCs are going to do with 8-12 hours of time until the PCs return.

To do this PF2 used a number of non-resource depleting focus spells (Lay on Hands, Soothing Ballad, etc.) and of course Treat Wounds.

That's all great.

The dilemma comes in when you consider what this free healing takes: time, often a lot of it.

In PF1 with a wand of CLW healing 5.5hp per use; you could heal ~55hp in 1 minute; more if you allowed wand sharing and/or had multiple wands. Thus an entire party could heal to full in several minutes; perhaps 10 at most.

In PF2 healing via focus spells might require several iterations of healing, refocusing, healing ,refocusing, etc... this might take 30-60 minutes.

Similarly using Treat Wounds might require several iterations which could taken 30-60 minutes and that's assuming you have Continual Recovery and Ward Medic, otherwise it could take multiple hours.

This is where the dilemma comes up....

- Your game assumes PCs are at/near full hit points each encounter.
- Regardless of game design, PCs given the opportunity will heal to full.
- You give PCs options to heal for "free" [using no limited resources]
- This takes 30-60 minutes.

So now you have your group of PCs taking ~45 minute break between each combat encounter in your adventure.

This creates a number of problems; mostly related to pacing and tension.

If you are in your standard dungeon crawl; if your PCs are able to happily take a break in the dungeon for up to an hour the game doesn't feel that dangerous or realistic.

If you are in a fast-paced/sensitive timeline driven adventure; it strains all realism that you could have your group of heroic PCs just sitting around for 30 minutes between each fight.

The counter to these points has often been:

- Use random encounters
- Don't allow them the time to heal to full

Those are great ideas; and they've worked for 50 years. But they work assuming an ablative hp model.

In PF2 your game is balanced that your hp is at full; if you interrupt a party who is weakened with a random encounter or they move along to the next encounter at half hit points, with several PCs with the wounded condition.... you are going to see some seriously high death rates amongst your PCs (and I imagine a lot of frustration).

And that's just the game mechanics issue; the pacing issue is a much more important one. Many PF APs are written from a certain sense of urgency and "heroic" style play; having your PCs resting for up to an hour after each combat encounter breaks up that sense of drama and tension and creates a lot of work for the DM to figure out how the dungeon/site they are active in responds to the PCs intrusion during the hour or so they are resting.

So....

If healing is free anyways; and the game is built upon the idea that you are at full hit points and if taking significant time to heal creates a number of design/pacing issues why do these time requirements exist?

Why doesn't healing just occur automatically or on a much shorter timeframe (say several minutes)?

What does the game GAIN but having it take 20,40, 60+ minutes to heal up to full after (almost) every combat?

What about if it only applies to PCs? (i.e. only they get to do half-damage on a miss).

Or a reverse form of incapacitation wherein if you are higher level than your target; you do half damage on a miss?

Right so let’s talk about A; game is broken, I like that sound of that.

Consequences of that?

#1 thing I see is faster combats as hp totals should deplete faster. Similarly PCs should find their hp dropping faster too; especially from lower level monsters who require say a 16 or higher to hit (who would now do half on 6+).

#2 correlated to #1 is that second and especially third attacks would be more appealing combat option

What are some other consequences you can think of?

Yes I was specifically talking about Strikes.

I’m not a fan of PCs oftentimes accomplishing nothing on their turn (due to say missing their attack). I have the same issue with spells where the passed save results in no results. Waiting 10-15 minutes just to roll a d20 and nothing happens is a tough sell.

Without getting too much into the why’s Initially just wanted to understand the problems a rule like this would create and which ones it solves:

Basically on attack rolls you follow the following rules:

Crit: double damage
Hit: regular damage
Miss: half damage
Crit fail: zero damage

Also as a tangent thought: in order to speed up play ever so slightly perhaps instead of roll dice->half for Miss it’s a static value such as avg. result/2 or Minimum possible damage.

Eager to hear how this violates the very soul of the game and will bring certain death to all of pathfinderdom :)

AsmodeusDM wrote:

Namely, that is certainly breaking all manner of verisimilitude through its existence. An ogre is unlikely to fall victim to my deadly poison because it's a big hulking creature 9' tall with a high constitution and the endurance of a giant; but then the same deadly poison doesn't work against the frail elven king who is aged and infirm.....because he's higher level than the poison?

Isn't that basically the same as the same elven king having more hitpoints than an ogre because he's a L15 wizard vs a 4hd bozo?

No; because it's not like the wizard gains or loses hit points relative to your level.

While my original post was more about the rules mechanics of the Incap rule (namely meaning that since higher-level creatures already have higher saves doesn't this mitigate the risk of such creatures routinely and easily failing saves vs. particularly debilitating effects) I must say that I also do agree with some of the points that have been raised about the game-play experience that this rule (and others like it) engender.

Namely, that is certainly breaking all manner of verisimilitude through its existence. An ogre is unlikely to fall victim to my deadly poison because it's a big hulking creature 9' tall with a high constitution and the endurance of a giant; but then the same deadly poison doesn't work against the frail elven king who is aged and infirm.....because he's higher level than the poison?

Hadn't really thought about it in those terms; and is does rub me strongly the wrong way.

Another interesting point I see being made a lot is about "taking down the boss too easily" or "but then the boss would just die." I'm just curious what the survival percentages of your bosses are in your games?

What I mean is, the PCs are victorious like what 99% of the time? I mean Paralysis spell or not; that monster (that boss) isn't making it out of the encounter alive is it?

I mean let's assume that in a typical adventure or dungeon that the PCs need to overcome a minimum of 10 combats/encounters. If the party has even a 10% chance of failing or losing those encounters the odds that they will make it all the way through those encounters is only 35%.

Clearly our party's in PF2 are not getting wiped or otherwise losing battles at this rate.

So then how often do the PCs actually lose a battle or get taken out or what have you. What's an acceptable "failure" rate? Is there one?

In order to give the party an 80%+ chance of successfully navigating 10 encounters in a row the odds of party failure on any single encounter has to be a measly 1%.

So given that; basically KNOWING that you are going to win anyways I don't understand how/why it's more fun to beat on a creature's HP for 5 rounds.

Put another way; it's the final fight of the big adventure. The big bad boss villain moves up to the party and smack the fighter. The two-handed pick wielding fighter goes next and amazing crits with his first attack (nat 20!) and second attack (nat 20!); they roll extremely well and the BBEG is dead!

Was that encounter, by your definition, lame?

Should/Would you as the DM somehow fudge that encounter and secretly give the BBEG more HP because it's "cooler" if the PCs get beat up a bunch?

I just don't understand what kind of game experience it is that you are hoping to have in this game.... you just want to roll dice and pretend that they matter?

There have been a lot of good points raised about preserving the action economy of a single creature ("the boss") vs. a whole party's worth of actions which are excellent points.

Still, given the design of PF2 if you feel the solution to making a "boss" interesting is to:

- Make it immune to the types of spells that are specifically designed to deal with single high-power targets.
- Give it much higher AC, Attack bonuses, and Saves than the PCs
- Give it a boatload of hit points.

Then I guess I just have to respectfully disagree with you and the game designers.

A Hobgoblin General is a level 6 creature; a Severe encounter for a group of 4 level 3 PCs.

PC's are likely to have ~ +9 attack bonuses vs. the HG's AC 25: a 25% to hit, which drops to 5% for any secondary attacks.

The HG's saves aren't too far behind (Fort +12, Ref +15, Will +13); and even with an 18 stat a spellcaster is going to be at DC 19.

This means that in order to "preserve the challenge of the fight" a martial or spellcasting PC is going to be lucky to do anything but miss in 66% to 75% of the rounds of the fight.

In a 4-round fight; maybe 30-40 minutes of play you might hit once or land one spell.

Maybe that's GOODMATH(tm); but it sounds painfully boring and uninspiring to me.

In a complete shift of opinion to the majority of you; I (as the DM) loved sinkorswim effects specifically to save the group the chore of having to hack and chomp their way through some monster's copious amount of hit points. Granted, their saves were better so they were still the underdog there to land one, but when they did it was awesome for the PC and the party.

It's so STRANGE to me to think of a group of PCs, a PARTY, being *upset* because someone in their group (a wizard or cleric say) successfully dealt with a powerful foe in a manner that saved them from the danger of a combat with said foe.

Like; what would that even look like in character?

*Powerful devil appears from the darkness before the party*

"Now Cheliax will have it's revenge you petty interlopers!"

*Wizard casts disintegrate and blasts the devil to dust*

Party: "Awww come on man; I wanted to fight that for a few rounds!"

THe main reason this is nice is because it allows spellcasting PCs to use their Hero Points to re-roll important spells (the same way their martial companions get to re-roll their important attacks)

I was definitely implying and leaning towards the "contrived narrative" vs. "emergent gameplay."

As for spells and Incap effects; we were not just looking at spells but specifically monster abilities (like the ghouls, but also medusas) as well as our party's monk who in the course of this discussion realized his Stunning Fist has the Incap trait meaning he can't use it against the type of enemies he'd most prefer to use it against (tough foes... who cares really if you stun 1 one of the six lower level foes).

Additionally the incap rules seems arbitrary. Hideous Laughter cuts into a foes actions, limits their reactions and can even remove all their actions for one round, but it is not Incap. The Slow spell removes actions (even on a successful save), but it is not Incap.

Maybe they feel there is a difference between Slow 1 and Stun 1; but uhhh there is not.

In discussing this with my players and thinking of options to alleviate it; we brewed up this possible house-rule based on the Character class expert save class features (like Juggernaut) but in reverse.

Incapacitation: If a creature is more than twice the level of a spell; it treats Critical Failure results as Failure instead.

In this way you solve two issues:

#1 the Crit Failure results are really the worst offense of the Incap effects, so you eliminate that result and still let the PCs get some effects with their spells.

#2 It means you also eliminate the extreme swinginess that happens when a high-level foe just happens to hit that Nat 1 and may end up with the Crit Failure effect anyway.

I am a little thorn about the current boss fight mechanics as they scream "xp only for blood" right into my face. Of course it can be quite anti-climatic if the bad guy falls victim to the very first save, however it can also be quite anti-climatic when your whole party knows that in order to bring that enemy down you need to wear down every single of his HP, spending yours in the process. No other way or outcome possible.

Exactly all this.

The issue is that for years in the attempts to create "the perfect climatic cinematic ending" to their linear adventure DMs were forced to come up with all ways to fudge and cheat in order to "keep their cool boss/final villain" alive so that they could have a "proper cool final fight just like the movies!".

In order to facilitate this, instead of cheating... PF2e just codified it into the ruleset making it so that every boss fight will be grindhouse affair where every PC will "get a chance to contribute" as you are forced to smash your way through hundreds of hit points.

blurg.

I don't see any issues with ghoul and lvl 2 or even 3 players.

A character fortitude save will be

1d20 Lvl + const + prof

Now, here's the maximum outcome:

Lvl 3 Expert Fortitude character with 16 const = +10

20% chance to fail

...

And here the lowest

Lvl 2 trained fortitude character with 8 const = +3

55% chance to fail

Between a +10 and a +3, the middle would be +7, which is 35% failure chance.

To me seems pretty balanced, if we consider we are talking about lvl-1/-2 enemies.

The problem is that ghouls are level 1; so once the PCs are level 2 the incapacitation rules kick in and all PC saves are treated as one degree higher. So for your example of a PC with +10 to save; this means that their 20% chance of Failure gets improved to Success (which means nothing happens). Only on a natural 1 (where the nat 1 rules apply) does the PC actually fail.

Similarly with your +8 with a 55% chance to fail; this individual on a roll of a 2 gets a 10 which is a failure... which gets upgraded to a Success (which again means nothing happens). Only a natural 1 from the PC will result in a Failed save.

Conversely, a number of incapacitating foes would be more dangerous than an equal level encounter of nonincapacitating foes, something that 5e focuses on.

Right so isn't the inverse true? Meaning that since ghouls (or medusae, etc.) are 'balanced' including their incapacitating traits; once you have mitigated that be being high level I have to assume that a good deal of their "challenge worthiness" drops off.

e.g.

A party of 4 level 1 PCs fight an encounter vs:

2 ghouls (level 1, 40xp each): 80xp
2 goblin pyros (level 1, 40 xp each): 80xp

These are equivalent.

A while later, now the PCs are level 3, you still want a moderate encounter:

4 ghouls (level 1, 20xp each): 80xp
4 goblin pyros (level 1, 20 xp each): 80xp

The PCs save are a few points higher so they are 10% more likely to save vs. the goblin pyros burning hands and other spells... but as for the ghouls the PCs are 95% to pass all of the ghouls saves.

It seems to me then that the effective challenge of the 4 ghouls is drastically lower than it would seem because so much of their combat effectiveness is tied to their special abilities.

Well it also means that like a monk can’t stunning fist a creature a level above him; basically you can only use your stunning fist when you are fighting a bunch of riff raft which when it doesn’t even matters they much

While playing a dungeon I made with my group they encountered a pack of ghouls; as they were level 3 PCs there were a number of ghouls. We were about half way through the fight when I noticed that the ghoul's paralysis ability had the Incapacitation trait so I checked the rules (figuring it might be like it is for spells; more than double). But for items, creatures, etc. it simply means if the target is higher level than the creature then the Incap rules apply.

i.e. once you are level 2 you are (essentially) immune to ghoul paralysis.

What I don't understand is, why? I mean as you level up your stats, proficiency, item bonus, etc all increase dramatically meaning that the odds that a level 3 or 4 (or 5 or 6 etc) PC fails a DC 15 ghoul paralysis save become ever lower and lower and lower.

This is true with all "hoser" type effects in the game (medusas, basilisks, etc.).

PCs naturally become less and less vulnerable to these effects due to the ever increasing nature of their saves.

Why have this rule then? Why make the PCs suddenly immune to the creatures powers once they are a single level above it; it essentially makes the monster nearly pointless and really rules out ever using the monster as duo, trio, or group later on down the line once the PCs are a few levels higher than the monster.

I'm not really sure which part of the ending you guys didn't like.

Sounds like your players were dissatisfied with not being heroic, which I get, but going for optimal efficiency isn't really heroic.

It's cool if you just needed to vent - I'm just trying to figure out Why.

Yeah just a random statement of a surprising end to an adventure ending in both a double un-climatic ending (both in terms of the town being blown up and the fight being a bit more of like a mugging)

Well we wrapped our final session of Plaguestone last night and didn't quite get the ending that anyone expected.

For starters in the previous session after making their way through the numerous severe and moderate encounters of the main level of Spire's Cradle and finishing off the alchemical drudges in the main laboratory the group, out of spells and beat-up decided to retreat and rest up before assaulting the final bottom level of the dungeon the next day.

The next day (and session) they returned to Spire's Cradle went into the lower levels, defeated the Amalgam creature, easily fought past the big bats, and then engaged Vilree the Alchemist in her underground layer.

It was there that the party was dismayed to learn that.... the town was already destroyed.

You see in the adventure ( as written) Vilree has sent one of her alchemical drudges off to trigger the explosion which will destroy the town as soon as she learns of the PCs intrusion. She informs them of this with some boxed text as she lays dying post-fight; a sort of "you think you've won.. but *coughcough* I'll have my revenge.. You'll be too late!!" then the PCs are supposed to run back and save the town.

There are numerous ways she is informed of the PCs approach, but the killing of her alchemical bonded servants alerts her of their death and so the prior day when she began notice the destruction of her servants she set her plan in motion.

Alas by the time the PCs learned of this it was of course far too late.

(I will add that my party didn't really care since they felt no real sympathy for the town and wondered why they were so helpless anyways. Additionally they wondered why Vilree spent months concocting some super alchemical bomb hidden in the town when she could have very easily taken her hordes of level 3, 4, and 5 monsters and just completely ravaged the town at-will... but I digress)

Since they couldn't save the town, they decided to at least avenge it and decided to end the threat of Vilree once and for all.

Combat followed and after playing PF2e for a while the group has begun to learn that just spamming attacking isn't the best option as many people on this forum routinely remind us of.

With that in mind, the fighter dropped his axe and Grabbed Vilree. He then kept her Grabbed (and even Restrained a few times) throughout the rest of the battle while bashing her in the face with his shield.

Flat-footed from the grab, the rest of the party was able to pile a lot of damage on her. And between wasting actions trying to escape the grab and taking attacks of opportunity from shield bashes from trying to do maniuplate actions (like pulling out potions); Vilree didn't do much.

Her big alchemical behemoth beast tried to save it's master; but there wasn't a whole lot it could do to free Vilree besides just try to attack the fighter as best it could.

We imagined it as the big strong fighter just kinda holding the small elf town (Grab) and beating her in the face with his off-hand shield... until the rest of the party joined in and surrounded her and wailed on her until death.

Not exactly the kind of Heroic Fantasy we were going for.

Everyone agreed that the tactic of grabbing and/or keeping her prone was very effective. But everyone also agreed that it both felt strangely cruel and violent (even more so than just hacking with weapons) and also very very non-heroic and even pitiful for the villain of the story to be dealt with in such a manner.

But that's the rub of it right? At the end of the day, combat and it's presumed lethality is really just all at the discretion of the GM and their whims at that moment.

I'm not talking about straight cheating fudging (aka misrepresenting a die roll), I'm talking about fudging by omission or by omission.

The best example I can think of in PF2 (as well as in PF1) is how monsters (including intelligent ones) treat downed PCs. Knowing that a heal spell will bring a PC back up into the fight the "smart" play of any reasonable intelligent humanoid foe would be to completely eliminate a PC once set to dying.

e.g. you have two creatures at the same initative; one attacks a PC and crits her down to negative and Dying 2. The second creature strides over and makes two quick Strikes to finish her off.

That's not even game-cheese that's actually roleplaying; namely that's how PCs would certainly handle their tactics vs. foes that had healing capabilities.

But GMs (myself included) will typically do ANYTHING but that.

We'll see the PCs are all down on HP and realize that each monster can just use their AOE attack and it should finish the whole party off... but we'll instead choose to use a claw/claw/bite attack routine ... knocking one PC down but leaving the others up.

I'm not really complaining here, I'm just saying that trying to act like the GM is some impartial referee and just "playing the monsters as is" is pretty much a bulls*** argument.

Yeah, while I think it's about off topic from the main thrust of the OP, the discussion of tactics is less about "don't let these enemies use optimal tactics" (especially since, as established, this isn't even a very good tactic most of the time).

It's more about adding layers of verisimilitude to a setting by translating the personality of enemies into fighting styles. It's just like in a video game, there are enemies that are more aggressive, more defensive, suicidal, enemies that work together and so on.

You could figure out the best strategy that every enemy could employ, but that would be... kind of boring.

And specifically to that end I do enjoy verisimilitude in roleplaying games; specifically when rules and mechanics back up and dictate a certain course of action that necessarily leads itself to advantages.

The best example; say you want a monster (say a wolf) to fight like a wolf...pack tactics, pulling the creature to the ground, surrounding it and attacking the downed foe... that kind of thing.

You could

a.) simply describe that's the way the wolves fight

b.) not describe much about the wolf at all and leave it up to the player/DM to decide it

or

c.) you could grant the wolf a cumulative +1 bonus to hit a foe for each other wolf adjacent to itself target and have it do an additional 1d6 precision damage to a prone target.

In other words. It's a
[Roleplaying]
[Game]

I believe that both elements should inform one another; there's no inherent bonus or penalty to the orcs attack in the manner described (other than the questionably tactical bonus) so I see no reason why you would play otherwise.

I mean what's the game rule on what INT you need to be to seek a flank or to go for a disarm? At what point (as a player) would your belief be unsuspended if a foe of Int X began doing Y type of action?

Perhaps, as a prior poster mentioned, shaming people is the answer:

"but the fellow players and I will embarrass a player who fights out of character"

Perhaps shaming the DM is the best option. /s

Just out of curiosity, what classes/builds you guys play?

Dwarf Fighter

Didn't expect this much conversation over my post.

One thing that came up a lot is "orcs wouldn't fight like that" or "look at their INT they wouldn't do that" or "that seems like hivemind tactics"

I'm curious how many players out there have ever had their DM (or group) disallow on action they took because it wasn't in-character for their character or race?

Or not a allow a PC to move to flank because their INT was 6?

Also, not sure what groups you guys play in, but my group plays in total mind-link level when we are planning our turns even if we are hundreds of feet apart in the dungeon.

Forgetting (for a moment) the effectiveness of such a tactic (someone did the math and it seemed like it's actually lower DPR, but again I believe the point of the tactic is to target softer targets such as the casters or in chokepoint scenerios).

Also, lastly, not white box but this happened a bunch throughout the Plaguestone adventure.

We are 2 months into the game now and due to the nature of PF2 and it's 3-action system we've noticed a trend that seems to repeat itself in combat often.

When the PCs are fighting a foe that outnumbers them (say a gang of orcs); the best pattern of play seems to be for the orcs all to essentially spring attack. They Stride, Strike, and Stride away.

They maintain a spread out formation (to minimize AOE effects and the ability for a PC to engage multiple foes at once).

Each turn the gang of orcs will all chain spring attack into one target PC until that PC is slain.

Occasionally the first orc will sacrifice his Stride away to instead set up a flank for the rest of the orcs for the rest of the round. So essentially 7 orcs all get to flank with just one of their allies since they just take their turns in line to wack at the PC who is flat-footed.

This behavior is even more obvious when the PC is doing something like holding a doorway or stairwell against a more numerous foe. By Stride,Strike,Stride the mosnters essentially all get to make their melee attacks against the PC who is guarding the narrow frontage.

Yes it's true; the monsters don't get to make their follow-up attack at -5; but honestly we've found that secondary attacks unless you are 2-3 levels higher than the target are pretty useless (to say nothing of the third attack).

Anyways; it reminds me of an old 3.x RPGA encounter at GenCon years ago where the fight was vs like 6 Ogre Skirmishers who all had Spring Attack.... except its like every fight.

Of course there are fights where the PCs are the ones who are the many vs the one big bad... but then they just tend to do the same tactics themselves; so it plays out the same just in reverse.

-Being prone doesn't grant you any bonus to your AC vs. ranged (it just makes you flat-footed)

-You can hide, even while being observed, as long as you have cover or concealment.

- Flanking, Prone, etc. all grant the same non-stacking penalty status of Flat-Footed.

I hiked the Appalachian Trail last year. I ate primarily dehydrated meals, jerky, and super dense compact foods (think Peanut Butter).

I assure you this is a misprint :D

I guess that in a game where you get so many choices there is like one thing that every class gets that says “does not matter what you do, you do this”

All barbarians get Rage and it just.... works
All rangers get Hunt and it just works
Etc.

Clerics get Heals and ..... it’s limited and tied to Charisma.

Like I just don’t get it.

Like imagine if everything g else in the game was the same but change the Rangers Hunt to 1+int modifier per day. Wouldn’t you feel that it was odd and out of place?

Sure a lot of the cleric feats make use of or modify the divine font ability, but there are also others you can take if you like. Nothing is forcing you to use divine font as anything but a bunch of spells in your back pocket, and I’d wager you’d still end up with an enjoyable character. Personally I don’t have an issue with having 3+ extra uses of something equitable to a max level spell. Modified in the way that strikes my personal fancy. And after I run through those, we’ll I'm still a full caster who might be a reasonably dangerous martial combatant. I don’t think I’m going to run out of juice until long after any other caster does.

Any caster has the same issue on limited use things per day. And honestly I don’t think any of them are as well off as the cleric is in this regard.

Well and that's why I'm trying to figure out what gives:

The Cleric in Pathfinder 2e is essentially the same class as the cleric from PF1. You get some armor and weapon proficiences, reasonable hit points, meh number of skill choices. You are a full caster and then you get some number of Channel Energy/Divine font abilities to heal the party and/or do damage to undead.

I don't understand how that's balanced (or fun) against a Druid who no longer has a limit on their wild shapes per day or a Barbarian who can rage every encounter or a bard who can use bardic music over and over again or a monk who can now (potentially) dimensionally leap every encounter.

Like pretend you were converting a party of 5th-level PCs from 1st ed. to 2nd ed.

"Barbarian! You can rage now every fight; and it lasts for 1 minute each time. No more tracking rounds of rage; just go ham dude"

"Druid! Remember how you could only wild shape once per day? Well guess what now you can wild shape; and as long as you have time minutes to regain your druid power you can wild shape again. You can do it dozens of times each day!"

"What about me???", says the cleric.

"Well remember how you had armor and 3rd level spells?"

"yes!"

"you still have those!"

"Okay, awesome"

"And remmber how you had channel energy and you could use it 3+your CHA modificer per day?"

"Yup, what is it now???"

" ONE plus your CHA modifier per day!"

"ummmm.... okay... and what else????"

"Ummm.... nothing... that's it. I mean you get a bunch of class feats; but so does everyone else. Actually because you're a caster you get 1 less class feat than the non-casters because..."

"Ohh okay. Can I remake as anything else please?"

+11 to hit and 18 damage sounds like a level 3 or 4 enemy. Level 1 characters taking a lot of damage from enemies several levels higher from them seems standard.

Shrug... not sure what the level of the monster was. Just know they were in the first encounter of the adventure and also used several additional times throughout part 1 and 2

Long story short, not sure if I'll ever be able to wrap my head around the idea that a cleric can cast dozens of dozens of Appearance of Wealth spells per day; but somehow is only casting a handful of Heal spells.

My group is pretty good about keeping their shields raised; quickly recognizing that with a lot of the creatures having over +10 to hit and ACs above 18 that the third attack (and usually the second attack) just isn't worth it.

But even with a shield raised the AC 21 fighter is still getting hit over 50% of the time from the +11 to-hit creature dealing 1d8+4+d6 acid wolves.

Also moving away is fine; but only if your movement is better than the creatures.

Also with no attacks of opportunity it's very easy for me to move the monsters around the battlefield with impunity, set up flanks pretty much every turn and focus fire down individual PCs.

I’m interested to see how builds play out, but I wonder how many clerics will follow almost the same route as yours; stacking focus powers ASAP to get to 3 focus points and several spells as quickly as possible.

My guess is a lot.

Also I’m interested in learning more from folks about what their in combat experiences are like. We don’t do APs normally (too linear) but because we are new we are playing plaguestone.

At level 1 when the higher go folk had about 20 to 22 hps they fought several ordinary encounters where the monsters did 18 damage per round.

At level 2 they fought some bushes and one crit on an air attack and did like 22 to almost the whole group... and the. The other 2 bushes in the encounter put out another 20 damage or so.

Maybe our experience is different; but seems to me like hps drop really fast in this game. Our feeling is that without a constant supply of in combat healing you are pretty much out of action after 2 or 3 hits, to say nothing of if the enemy gets a crit.

Well. Play a cleric and see.

Over half the feats in the clerics lineup require you to spend Heal or Harm spells to trigger or use them.

After 1 or 2 encounters when you are out of heals and now your class feats don’t work, meanwhile everyone else has their full capacity of powers and abilities; see how much fun that plays out.

Or maybe you all just play constant 15 minute adventuring days, in which case.... yeah cleric is fine, probably OP.