ShadeRaven's page

Count me among those who see +1/level to be a solution, not a problem, especially in relationship to combat. I find that it creates a clearly recognizable advancement in power as characters rise in levels.

The test results have proved to be satisfactory in this regard for all my players but one who simply loves the Min-Max, Optimization First style of PF1 - unfortunately, he's found it frustrating in PF2 because he's simply not found a way to make his character significantly better than the challenges he's expected to face at various levels.

Personally, when optimization is the only path to success, I think it becomes more restraining. PF1 has innumerable options but the need to optimize/min-max actually railroads players tremendously. So many fun character concepts became trivialized by their relative inadequacy compared to the hardcore op character, resulting in frustration and abandonment. It's one of the significant factors to why PF1 campaigns have rarely succeeded at our local hobby shop and why 5E all but made PF1 extinct. The Playtest has revived Pathfinder here.

Now a concern of mine with PF2 (as it exists now) is that there isn't enough delineation between the advancement in Skills. There needs to be more meat on the bone between Trained, Expert, Master, and Legendary. Some skills show some structure that makes improved skill obvious, but many (most) don't. I expect that to change with a final release.

I agree with you by and large, Ed, especially on the Hero Points. In fact, I don't get why bouncing up from dying is a cheap purchase while rerolling a single roll and having to live with the results is twice the cost. I am already a bit stingy on Hero Points because of it - one of the few things I am not trying to play RAW by. I also don't give out Inspiration like candy, but at least it's not as impacting as this Hero Point system which just feels like an immersion-breaking gimmick to me.

That said, finding that balance is tough. As we've seen in other threads, there are some who want combat to last 1 round and others who have a great distaste for any Save or Suffer powers. It's likely the Hero Point easy out appeals to them.

I'd like to see Hero Points reworked, too, so that escaping death is the big save and the rerolls as the 1 point usage (with extra action being in between) - that way, I can feel more comfortable handing them out for heroic acts (and PLEASE, remove that garbage about being able to bribe a GM for more points - AWFUL!).

As for the dying rules, I like your approach but we made use of the current one even if it was awkward to start. Give us something that creates the drama at the table for everyone, that sense of urgency that at least my tables find fun, without being "gamey".

Well.. there is some onus on the GM to know what players are getting into and if it'll put them in a no-win situation.

But, yes, a novice GM playing a high level campaign without much practical experience... it's tough. Good GMing doesn't come easy or quick.

But researching the Archmage's Tower to learn of rumors of a Lich and then hunting down a scholar (or using skills) to find out it's capabilities and weakness isn't metagaming, it's good Role-Play and should be encouraged.

As a GM, I would consider it a failure on my part if I sent them into a situation where they would be at a severe disadvantage without feeling I offered them enough narrative indicators to prepare for something that deadly. A Lich is a serious foe. A creature of legendary evil and horror.

Probably shouldn't be a wandering monster no one is prepared for.

Those spells and powers that feel like Save or Die have been a source of contention for a long time. It is a harsh outcome, no doubt.

Granted, a simple Remove Paralysis spell (Level 2) will cure even permanent paralysis, as well as the Salve of Antiparalysis, so it's not really permanent.

I think this speaks to how the game is played/narrated. It's probably wise for any GM to at least leave some clues and rumors/hints as to the necessity to prepare for Paralysis because players will want to rage quit when a bad roll completely takes them out of the game.

By the time the party is facing a lich, it should be pretty easy to get their hands on a few Salves (only 15 gp, or 150 gp for the AOE/stone to flesh version) or even have an occult, primal, or Iomedae cleric capable of memorizing that spell.

Dire, you play exactly like we do...the round might be broken up as a 6-second span, but it's really just heartbeats between actions that are going on. It's also why I stress, in my games, that players don't try to overthink their actions because I am not going to overthink NPC actions.

Combat is chaos. Mistakes are made. Perception is usually limited to a very narrow, frantic focus. That's roleplaying.

Everyone carefully planning their moves, using precise actions to manipulate the battlefield, moving pieces like a chess board... that can be fun.. and very tactical. But my groups want to roleplay first, so we try to deemphasize the rigid feel that just playing the game like a board game gives.

So I can understand how people dislike losing some of the tactical, board game feel that can be very strong in PF1 - PF2 certainly is starting to move away from that (at least as we've experienced it) - but as a roleplaying experience, we like the easier flow and less restrictive nature that we're experiencing within this playtest.

Malk_Content wrote:

If players go out of their way to spoil which foes have Reactions for themselves then of course the surprise will go quickly. The same can be said for pretty much anything that was meant to be a surprise but isn't. Of course that becomes less fun.

If players don't know what Reactions foes have, then of course they won't get to make interesting strategic decisions based on this knowledge. Instead they'll just occasionally take extra 'gotcha' damage through no fault of their own. Obvious, this is less fun.

Interesting. Different reactions to different groups.

In my campaigns, and maybe because I encourage the roleplay and reward players by making roleplaying important, my players will actually consciously decide to not-know what creatures do, especially at lower levels, as a reflection of their naivete. "I don't think Griblet would know.... so I do..."

On top of that, I create new creatures not found in some publication and they have to discover their capabilities themselves.

Now it's important to know how the unknown affects Encounter Difficulty, but I never start designing encounters assuming players (or characters) know everything about a creature to begin with.

I think this not only makes things fun from a discovery perspective, it creates a closer experience to what players get from a good book or exciting movie.

Not only that, but it rewards the characters who employ Recall Knowledge, research into what denizens of an area are capable of, and creates some intrigue when listening to the tavern rumors ("I'm tellin' ya, Buck, them Lizardfolk have been trained by Gorum himself. They be battle masters every one of 'em").

So for us, the mysterious, unknown enemy adds to the fun - it certainly doesn't ruin it.

Yeah, it was the difference between an Master Heavy Musical Instrument and a Master Disguise Kit (4700 sp price difference there), for example.

Sort of makes it weird to decide if a character invests research, becomes highly trained in a craft/lore type deal, and I decide they are going to have the chance to create an unique item like say an Expert Backpack that can hold 5 bulk, etc.

Not that I can't just houserule the cost just like I houseruled the ability to make it to begin with, but looking at what comes before is often a nice baseline and those numbers are all over the place.

This is well thought out and very well said, OP. I agree with much of your assessment.

They simply need to fix Heavy Armor so that at least having STR to wear it is beneficial. I don't mind STR being a dump stat for the less physically talented characters. I do agree that some of the contests of strength should not rely on CON (Fort Saves) as the opposition.

For me, that leaves the INT problem which I think stems from the reduction of it's contribution to skill points. Perception being INT based is an interesting idea, though. Even outside of non-perception initiatives, perception is an important skill and generally useful to everyone.

It's okay, though, to have less-important attributes for varying characters as well as character flaws, but I always thought that should be more role based rather than a part of creating a viable character.

Yeah, I think tactics has been and will be important to both versions of PF.

Maybe it would be best said that a highly optimized character in PF1 with non-op characters against unaltered, CR appropriate enemies, gives the appearance that tactics aren't necessary because they can bulldoze encounters by comparison.

Necromental is right, a DM who optimizes and alters accordingly can really challenge those optimized, superior characters. But, again, that's where the divide comes in. There are casual GMs, too, who don't want to have to rework material to make it appropriate. They want to be able to buy an AP and just play it as is (and my experience with that was supercharged characters outclassed RotRL played as is but the more casual player found it very challenging).

If MER-c has seen what I have seen, it may simply be that without GM intervention, the truly optimized characters using all the available rules can make teamwork and tactical strategy negligible. It was in the buff thread (iirc), amongst others, that PF1 veterans were complaining that PF2 lacked the ability to decide battles (even against the BBEG) before hand or in the first round - but that only came as a compliment to all the optimization of PF1. 1 round combat is only common to those characters.

I would hope that PF2 finds a way to reduce the disparity so that canned adventures are playable by all comers and teamwork, tactics, etc., can be the agent that makes encounters much easier and more rewarding.

I am with Krysgg, I think Recall Knowledge and Automatic Knowledge are enhanced by this system.

Keep in mind, though, I came from a day and age where we couldn't just google up a creature real quick and know what it was before we even fought it.

As odd as it sounds, as a player back then, part of the excitement of encountering these fantastic creatures was discovering what they were capable of. It also enhanced the RP of the game as we sought out tidbits, rumors, and wise people who might help us prepare for the coming encounter.

Again, though, I like the uncertainty and the mystery, but I am not sure if that still holds true for people who grew up with click-to-know availability.

One interesting thing comes to mind off of Starfox's comment...

My group proceeded in this scenario with the idea in mind that they'd have to conserve resources and even risk overextending themselves as they race against time in hopes of rescuing someone. So they didn't go in guns blazing and alpha-striking from the get go - no rest and recharge every couple of battles.

Is that a foreign concept to many? Is there a place for that kind of scenario or is the 1-4 encounter day now the norm?

This group has enjoyed how Treat Wounds has allowed for the extended adventure day where it doesn't feel like the average 24 hour period is 30 seconds of action followed by 23 hours, 59 minutes, and 30 seconds of rest.

It's also why having improved cantrips is important to the viability of such a campaign.

My preferred method of spellcasting has always been the Mana/Power/Spell point system (such as RoleMaster) with interesting spells/spell lists to accompany it. It also allowed for the risk of overcasting and excessive PP use to add extra possibilities/dangers.

It's not going to happen, but that type of system has always been to my liking.

I thought tying damage dice to weapon bonus was fun at first, until I had to decide what to give out as a reward in game. The changes in party balance from just 1 character getting that +1 weapon was dramatic and I really started to wonder if the tidal shift that came with weapon bonus wasn't overdone.

However, maybe it's my distant roots with D&D, but I don't want to see such a dramatic change as eliminating magic items altogether from D&D. It just seems so "unfantasy" as well as unfun. Part of the excitement of finding Excalibur is that it's better than that sword you bought at the renaissance faire.

I also tend to disagree with the thought that, in the old system, the different with a +2 weapon and a +3 weapon (+1/+1 hit/dam) was still too big. A +2 Dragonslayer or a +2 Vicious Morningstar isn't relegated to useless just because someone found a +3 Longsword. Or the simple fact that even a normal +2 can be useful when fighting a creature that's immune or resistant to slashing damage, so having a bludgeoner on hand is still worthwhile.

I guess for me, I want to see a little juicy magic still have some impact, but that the core of a character's effectiveness still comes from within.

As far as buffs go, the idea of pre-buffing turning a challenging fight into a trivial one - ugh! There should be advantages, for certain, to the well planned, well informed party going into a BBEG fight, but having buffs becoming so impactful as to make combat mundane isn't great. It goes back to that Pathfinder 1 PHD required to play the original edition of this game - I don't want to see PF2 degenerate into the Power Gamer monsters vs the Casual Gamer pitifuls of PF1. That disparity *has* to be reduced, in my opinion. My players don't want to have to read forums, study synergies, and pour through rulebooks to be effective, viable. And I can't fathom the idea that anyone finds it fun to have combat become trivial throughout because AP and Adventure design should be done with the more relaxed gamer in mind.

I am with you, Vid. Moby Dick, 2E, is a winner!

I don't mind it being 2E - every new edition of D&D has been pretty drastically different than the previous version except for AD&D to 2nd Edition AD&D.

What I want most from what I have seen so far is much more vague and much more encompassing. I see a lot of good ideas and too much poor execution. I think trying to tighten up the rules for easier application is a great idea, but then they scatter them about in an awful layout that makes finding all the pieces an exercise in PDF hopping. If this had been a hardback book, I would have broken the binding constantly flipping back and forth.

There's also this feel that the original goal was to make the rules easier to use, and I think there was a lot of progress there, only to have some individual components completely forget that was the intent as the brainstorming session group for that feature got lost in micromanagement. Because some pieces of game play are unnecessarily convoluted, hopping between the smooth and understandable to the confusing and unruly makes it all seem worse.

So we played tonight in a healerless group, except for a modest amount from the Paladin. It's a new group, so level 1.

After a couple of battles that went very much in the party's favor (which included the beauty of a readied shield with blocking damage, and paladin's retributive strikes), the group finally ran into trouble against a couple of giant animals (lizard and ferret).

The first short rest period (30 minutes) saw the Dwarven Fighter healed to full with Treat Wounds. However, the Paladin, who has only a 12 CON, was a little unlucky and received only 1 HP of healing, leaving him with 7 wounds still after the rest. The group decided to forge on as the Paladin had 3 Lay on Hands left and the rest of the group was in good shape and fully charged.

However, the next battle, against an Orc with a trained Giant Ferret at its side saw the misfortune of a big hit landing on the Paladin. This took him to dying. The orc was cleanly dispatched despite its Ferocity reaction, and the Giant Ferret was actually calmed by the Gnome Sorcerer (and a good Diplomacy check per Animal Whisperer) who has the ability to speak with animals innately as the Ferret was already severely wounded and wanting escape.

Unfortunately, the Paladin was dying and getting worse (dying 2 by this time). Quickly, the Dwarven Fighter who is a Trained Medicine man, tended to his wounds hoping to keep him from the brink of death. A solid roll there stabilized the Paladin and left him unconcious, and wounded, but no longer dying.

And then the twist...deciding it was important to get him back on his feet, the dwarf then attended the paladin and Treated his Wounds. Critical failure (1). No other healing available.

This was really the first time that using a Hero Point really mattered. Using that, the Paladin shook off the ill effects of having that Giant Ferret tear into him, he sat up, exhausted and battered, and promptly set out to Lay on Hands himself all three times. He's not at full health (just shy with 2 points of damage), can't receive any healing from Treat Wounds, and there's no other healing available now.

We left it there as it was getting late, so I am not sure how the party plans on progressing. There's a poor farmer's son that's been abducted, so leaving him at the hands of the Orcs is a tough decision. However, the Paladin is healthy enough, but still suffering from the ravages of early combat and is in a weakened state physically, such that recovering from further trauma might be very difficult.

We are definitely enjoying the interplay with Treat Wounds and groups both with and without true healers.

What we ended up doing is allowing for Treat Wounds to be combined with a Full Night's rest. IE: If the Healer's Tools user wanted to Treat Wounds on their watch, for that 2 hour stretch, they could do up to 12 Treat Wounds checks for characters that appeared would not be recovering from previously inflicted wounds, exhaustion, trauma, etc.

To be fair, I run a grittier campaign world and have GMed in game systems where things like broken bones, head trauma, and severed limbs was a part of the game. I am happy to be back to less complicated gaming now that time and effort are both less expendable, but I still balk, just a little, at the FULL HEAL button where characters are usually either just dying/dead or at full HPs.

And yes, I realize that's today's D&D and I am fine with that. If the voices here that believe Treat Wounds isn't strong enough are the majority and they boost it more, I'll be okay with that, too. I am just looking at our experience with it and how it reflects on game play and our preferences.

Not to mention that I don't remember the last time I actually played/GMed in a campaign where every single aspect of it was pure RAW.

Our Doomsday Dawn testgroup had another short game session tonight (just over an hour) and it was interesting again.

1st) Even with a Cleric, Treat Wounds is valuable. The group got severely beat up after 2 fights and each time they managed to use Treat Wounds effectively. The first time, the group healed all 4 battered characters to full. The second time, 3 of the 4 were in bad shape and we finally had a Bolstered (crit fail) that stopped the healing for one. We finished with 3 completely healthy character and 1 moderately wounded character (about 70% health). The Cleric has been out of heal spells since using his last 2 sessions ago.

2nd) Some regret was expressed about not raising CON more now that Treat Wounds is the dominate healing path.

3rd) Very satisfactorily, the group is much more willing to forge on rather than have those awful short adventure days when healing spells are expended.

We also have a second test group where they are purposefully playing without healing to see how things like Treat Wounds and Battle Medic will go as the primary healing. The characters will definitely be built a little differently with that in mind.

So my playtest group welcomed the advent of the Medicine: Treat Wounds addition to the rules with open arms. A chance to have something different than Cleric Healbotting as an avenue to adventuring in Golarion.

However, we just played a couple of nights of PF2/PT where characters were getting beat up pretty notably. The Cleric’s Heals were all used up but the desire to stop just to get heal spells back was undesirable based on the RP of the campaign. Fortunately, players had invested in both Medicine as a skill and the Healer’s Tools as an item – it was our first real test of the newer features that came with the rules update.

This began some real observation on the use of Treat Wounds in the game. After literally hours of discussion on the subject, here’s a lot of what was expressed (as an aside, this group is coming from 5E with Short Rest, Long Rest, Second Wind, and Hit Dice healing):

1st) Treat Wounds felt like a more “in character” way of healing naturally. This was appreciated, though some thought that the 10-minute skill check routine created a lot of die rolls that then broke immersion as more and more were required.

2nd) The bigger concern was how it felt like Treat Wounds really made Full Rest healing terrible. A single 10-minute rest with a competent Medicine user was as good as a full night’s rest. That 16 CON level 4 Fighter got 12 HPs in 10 minutes – and 36 in just a half an hour. Had he taken a full 8 hours rest, he would get just 12. The DC of that Medicine Check was 16. Assurance on an Expert Skill almost made that automatic, but luckily it’s not (however, at level 3, EVERY SINGLE Treat Wound check will automatically succeed with Assurance – DC 15 – so Treat Wounds is essentially a regeneration skill, but fortunately it’s only that level the numbers work). The Healer had an 18 WIS (+4) and Expert Medicine at level 4 (+5). With a DC 16 and a +9, he will succeed 70% of the time, which he did 3 times in a row in the case we had for 36 HPs. There was only a 5% (crit fail 1) of any sort of healing train slowing.

So the real concern was that suddenly 8 hours of rest seemed inconsequential. Couple that with how good Treat Wounds is (from 4 to 12 in our 4th level group) with time, there was concern that it became a Must Have skill (medicine) and item (healer’s tools), even with a Cleric in the group. With there being no associated cost after the initial kit purchase, it felt a little odd – are there really 100 hours of bandages, tinctures, herbs, salves, etc., in that one medicine kit so that a Medicine trained character can use it forever, healing 1000s of points of damage? That also seemed unreasonable - maybe there should be some associated cost with more and more use (IE: limited charges on each Healer's Tools).

It really did feel like a 10-minute AoE regeneration tick hoping to dodge that die roll of a 1. That made it a must skill for every party it was decided.

I wonder if it's just a Pathfinder thing. The need to have specific items available for builds that are done out to level 20 or the character is ruined.

I have to admit, this is foreign to me, but I am not a hardcore PF player. We are very casual, even if we play on a weekly basis, and I don't think anyone demands or expects any particular magic item to be automatically available to them. Honestly, I'd be surprised if more than a couple players even think beyond a level or two ahead of the 13 active in current campaigns.

That said, I do have players who ask how they might find something and no one else at the table has a problem with the idea of individual goals as part of the team concept.

And I really don't get hints of the must-have thinking in our 5E campaigns or in other games we play from time to time (SW:EotE, CoC, RM, SF).

So many mixed emotions on this subject.

1) I really disliked the Super Hero aspect of PF1 that Captain mentioned, but really not because of the Super Hero build itself, but because of the disparity it created between the haves and have-nots. That specific aspect almost made PF1 unplayable within this community until we found a balance that worked for everyone - and even that was unfortunate because I have some players who literally scaled down their characters to be more compatible with the others who weren't as good or as caring about maximizing efficiency.

So in that regard, I want to echo what Captain said in his post: a lower threshold for mastery and a higher floor for non-optimizers would be welcome.

2) There is some interesting aspects to the PF2 approach with more feats broken into different categories. Players are enjoying more customizing options. However, there's definitely been commentary on how some feats just seem to be lacking and that's the problem with so many options - breaking them up into segments sometimes leaves a disparity in what was a key feature and what was rather mundane. Now there exists some feats that feel highly desirable with others being very, very meh.

ShadeRaven wrote:

I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.

Okay, self-congratulatory, benevolent DMing aside, when something is Common, as decided, semi-arbitrarily, by someone else, and you think it should be Rare, Unique, or not available, at all, and the player demands access, as it is officially listed as Common, what then?

Heh. That's a bit unfair, but I have always approached GMing as a cooperative rather than a dictatorial. I know for a fact others are quite self-satisfied with the iron hand they run their tables with.

You put me in a difficult position, Vic. I fear you'll easily discount my approach as "self-congratulatory" because the simple truth is that my players trust my judgment because I rarely rule without making it a shared decision.

I once ran a campaign set in a post-apocalyptic fantasy setting where so much was lost where arcane and divine magic, spellcasting, and so much more was generally lost to ravages of the Dragon Lord Wars. Centuries later, the small sanctuary where a small packet of the surviving races resided was the setting to a new campaign. Players were going to have to work very hard at discovering the lost gods, rediscover the arcane, and so forth.

It was extremely successful and even made it's way off of the tabletop. What made it works, though, was the trust and shared experience that everyone should feel at our tables.

So, if I am running a campaign and I decide Identify or Detect Magic isn't suitable for thematic reasons, there's no outcry or fuming at my unfairness. And if a player had a character concept that was particularly geared towards a feature I was restricting, there would be no problem in sitting down and discussing whether or not there's an avenue that would still work for both the campaign setting and the character.

It really isn't that hard from my experience.

Rysky wrote:

And the Rarity system is doing the very exact opposite of "leave it to the GM to rebalance".

Yes, and that is the problem for me; not really into other people telling me what is common, uncommon, rare, and unique in my campaigns. Though, as they want to infuse PF2 with more Golarion, I guess the rarity system is to be considered for Golarion campaigns.

Which is really a conundrum, isn't it?

If everything is common because there is no rarity system, well then DMs that don't want that have to tackle that mess of either having to invent it themselves or deal with the fallout of having players gripe about not allowing what's clearly core to the rules.

But if you put in a rarity system, the gripes as to how it's implemented, how unfair it is, or how it forces GMs to make decisions they didn't want to deal with come to the forefront for those who want something different.

I can only speak for myself: I prefer to seeing restrictions and then finding ways to be the benevolent GM who gives players an avenue to achieving what they want that isn't normally readily available, than having to restrict access to what the player believes the rules say is unconstrained.

Don’t want this to be too long, so I’ll try to be concise. How are people dealing with transitioning from exploration to encounter mode especially as it relates to the narration and implementation of initiative?

First, let me share how I have been doing it, based on my interpretation of the rules which still feel a bit vague at time, in hopes of sharing ideas, getting feedback, and improving my gamemastering of this playtest (and eventually PF2 down the line).

I’ve spent a lot of time in the past doing the typical process: group explores, combat happens, everyone rolls for initiative. I try to narrate this transition, but inevitably, it comes down to the usual thing: blah blah blah, roll for initiative. Everyone knows it’s going down from that point.

However, with PF2, I’ve taken a different approach. As part of the exploration/discovery process, players actively give me their actions and roll their perceptions. “I sneak to that pillar and look around.” “I head down that hallway, keeping an eye out for trouble. We know there’s orcs in these ruins.” “I study the ground, looking for tracks or other signs of orc passage.” These all become default initiative rolls regardless of whether combat begins or not. If the orcs aren’t there, then they move on and the next set or skill checks determine what initiative will be if combat ensues.

So as combat starts, it’ll be something like this:
I roll initiative for the 4 orcs just ahead. They get scores of 14, 12, 10, 5. Griblet the Goblin scored a 17 stealth, his initiative score as well. Gordray the Monk’s scouting down the hallway netted only an 8 perception. However, Jrey’s survival check for tracks was a solid 19, putting him at the top of the initiative tracker. Combat begins as such, with Jrey.

Me: Jrey. You see the distinct muddy tracks of the orcs you guys are pursuing, clearly fresh, leading to your west. At the edge of the torchlight, you see a shadowy shape that you have come to recognize all too well – Orcs!

Had Griblet been on top of the initiative tracker, combat would have ensued with something like “Griblet, as you slink along the wide hallway, keeping to the shadows and cover of the pillars that run along it, you come upon the 4 orcs your party has been hunting. Their readied weapons and angry expressions are clear indications of their ill intent. It does not appear they are aware of you yet, but they certainly have their eyes down the hallway where the light of the monk’s torch glows brightly.”

And so on, including if an orc had gone first, it would begin with them emerging and attacking the party first.

In this, the players have really come to enjoy it. There’s no sudden roll for initiative announcement to break the narrative immersion and indicate that combat has started – it just happens as part of the game flow.

In a bit of a twist, too, I sometimes allow for some additional tweaks to initiative rolls for players, though this is probably a little more of a departure from the core (though I find the rules vague enough to give me some latitude on how to play out combat initiation). For example:

Traveling through a dangerous forest, everyone is on edge, even Griblet, so perceptions all around. However, there's a strange, acerbic smell in the air that someone with Nature Training might be able to identify as Troglodytes - so I call for anyone trained in Nature to make a roll. A good roll there might boost their initiative as they at least recognize some additional danger from the evidence at hand. The troglodytes, who were all hiding using stealth, suddenly leap to the attack - fortunately for Jrey, something in the air had him wary (Nature roll resulted in a 19), so he reacted quicker than most. His perception initiative changes from the 9 he rolled to 19 now, moving him to the front of initiative once again! Combat begins with me describing Jrey's sudden awareness of the distinct stench of Troglodyte and proceeds accordingly.

How are others handing this and what do you think of this approach?

Yeah, it's always a bummer when a RPG company moves on to a newer version or something else.

I know people who still play 4E and disliked 5E. I am sure PF1 to PF2 will be the same. For that matter, I know some people still playing AD&D, heh.

On the bright side, I have 3 campaigns going currently (online and locally). Two are 5E and both, to my surprise, are really into the PF2 playtest to the point where we actually halted our campaigns for over a month now to playtest PF2. Very surprising, since both were not interested in PF1 anymore. We even started a PF1 campaign just to compare, though they still struggle to handle all the options and rules, with most of them not interested in looking up online character creation optimization suggestions.

My PF1 group still plays PF1 and about half of them are slow to convert to PF2 at this point because they struggle to give up all their bells and whistles, all the time and effort they put into making very specialized, specific optimized characters that they can't recreate in PF2.

All in all, though, I consider the playtest to be an encouraging success locally.

Of course, I can see at least one case where the rarity system could be used to make the players feel really good. Let's say that a PC wizard invents a new spell or magic item. It would be very appropriate for the GM to designate the spell or item as "rare" and rule that the only way to get it would be from the PC wizard.

I love allow players to be agents for their own discoveries. They are encouraged to be unique in my campaigns. Some take advantage of it, some don't.

However, what I don't understand is why players feel that they are the only one allowed to be unique or have access to the rare and wonderful. Just because something exists doesn't mean it's automatically available to the players. Maybe that Teleportation Spell or Rod of Lordly Might is unique to some other wizard or craftsman, and they guard that knowledge just as the players do their own inventions.

Players probably wouldn't feel so special if I had them spend time and coin to design a new spell or craft a new item only to walk into the next dungeon and have 4 shamans all now using it against them.

That's where my confusion comes in. It's okay to limit availability of the rare and wondrous. I think my players even feel more satisfied and finding that rare thing when they had to work hard and overcome obstacles to achieve it.

Is it really that fun to have everything automatically given?

Yeah, sounds like you had a total crap experience, good on you for sticking out as long as you did, I would have bailed very soon after that sort of approach from a DM. If I get a whiff of an adversarial attitude, from anyone, my interest disappears.

I also don't like the attitude I have heard/read of, where players demand to play races, classes, etc, that are inappropriate for the setting, then blame the DM for being an uncreative and controlling meanie for not allowing their warforged ninja/occultist in a low-magic S&S campaign.

There are two parts to my sticking it out: 1) I had gone about 8 years since the last time I had been a player, DMing only. Just wanted to RP without the tax. 2) He was actually a gifted narrator and wonderful setting builder. I really enjoyed the presentation, just hated the application.

The angry player attitude is so far departed from my experience, and I have literally DMed hundreds of campaigns, one-offs, D&D Encounters, and conventions combined. But a lot of that came back before the internet became what it is now (in fact, before there was an internet the public could reach at all).

Put me in the camp where dwarves should have their base speed raised to 25. They know how to move at their size.

Ever since the game moved (in 3E) towards gridded tactics, greatly reduced maneuverability has been very punative. Setting dwarves apart from the others as being much worse at getting around in combat, for a race that's supposed to be noted as determined, implacable warriors, seems unjustified and unbalanced.

I'd much prefer to see them being better at dealing with heavier armors because of a background that often speaks of the deep mountain forges producing plate wearing combatants, than what we have now.

As an aside, I don't mind some of the restrictive nature that comes with heavy armor - there should still be a place for the non-DEX-heavy fighter type. I think the bigger problem is that there's less defensive benefits to wearing them (AC gains seem low with the heavier, slower, more encumbering armors). When Studded Leather is AC 2, losing 10 points of speed, adding 3 bulk, losing 4 max dex, penalizing skills by 4 more points, just to gain 4 points of AC (in Full Plate) seems like too much loss for too little gain.

Yeah, it's a shame, but I see the reason: control freak/stonewalling DMs have made it an unpleasant experience for some. So, you have two potentially bad things; mean-spirited, egomaniacal DMs, and overly entitled, selfish players.

I think once the group agrees to the world/campaign, session 0 and all that (omissions, alterations, additions, etc), they should stick to that.

I did have a Ravenloft DM (nice guy outside of the game) who literally took the approach some do here: His goal was to defeat us using what he thought of as relatively fair encounters and setting appropriate obstacles.

And boy was he successful.

Except for his wife, I was the only person to ever reach level 5 (with an ultra-protective, sanctuary cleric) in that campaign (she made 8). Unfortunately, it made us players feel like he would double-down on his aggressive approach when we had some notable successes - as if we somehow offended the Lords of Ravenloft so they'd be even more focused on destroying us.

Unfortunately, it was taxing and sometimes outright discouraging. I lasted just about a 18 months before the toll and constant frustration at seeing characters die had me bow out of the campaign.

I suppose that if I thought the DM was against me a game, I might consider any restrictions on character development or magic availability to be just one more way he or she was trying to "defeat" me.

Definitely not my style nor one I would care to be a player in.

It really is a shame, as you said Vic, that some players have had their experience soured in what I think is a wonderful social game. RPGs have blessed me with many friends that have lasted a lifetime.

One interesting aspect of the rarity is the player-DM relationship that it brings to the forefront.

Based on a lot of what I read above, it seems like players (and some DMs, I am sure) believe that material that's in a book should first be considered universally available to their characters - they don't want "DM approval" to be a part of the game.

I've always played and DMed with the thought that everything automatically is under the blanket of DM approval, but more often sort of a background thought than one that requires such active interaction. Then again, the campaigns I have been a part of (on both sides of the table) usually evolve naturally so theirs no need to have these extensive lists of what's available for all levels as some suggest - we cross those bridges as we reach them.

Hopefully, most campaigns operate with player-DM cooperation and trust. In imaginary worlds with impossible actions, the only thing that's real is the friendships and real-life fellowships that RPGs create.

I am with you on this. I'd prefer to see some structure to DC handling of trying to craft items beyond your level and perhaps put more element of danger into failure (such as on a normal failure, loss of 25% of the materials and on a critical failure loss of 50%).

Right now, this just seems like a great opportunity for mismatch between someone who studied all the cool stuff available and building a char around it, only to have a GM say, nah, because they're intemidated with, "How do I handle teleportation?!".

This is why GMing is hard.

At least I know I have the respect of my players so that if I say "yes, but..." that indicates some extra effort has to be made to attain something they want, they trust I am doing so for good reason while trying to be fair to their desires for their character.

Personally, if Teleportation was commonplace in my campaign, I'd figure anti-teleportation measures would develop pretty quickly to counteract its use. That wouldn't be because I was intimidated (or lazy or vindictive or whatever), it would just seem a necessity. It is why I actually do prefer a rarity system because if players attain something of that nature, it *will* feel significant and will make their characters unique and more noteworthy because if it.

Main reason for the frustration is because devs seems 100% out of touch with the problems.

.
.
.
In short:

It's
A) the complete silence of the Devs on the "why"...

I suppose that's fair, but I do remind myself that this is a long process with many areas of need so *I* try to remain patient in areas I find needing direct attention.

For me, it's always good to step away for a few days, even weeks, and come back to see what's happened and how things have progressed to see the effort that's going into improving the game.

I *have* seen them make significant improvements to various aspects of this playtest ruleset without first acknowledging to each individual who's upset about something so I remain optimistic that our voices are heard and not every solution is so easily addressed quickly.

I think a tag for rarity would be a tremendous addition. It would offer at least some insight as to what makes something more difficult to attain and add some extra lore for the DM to consider.

That said, I still like the system. When it comes to character features (like spells), it adds Roleplay in my campaigns. Unlike some others, I don't weild a BAN hammer, not do I like simply allowing everything just because "it's in print!" What the rarity allows for me is instant food-for-thought when it comes to a particular feature (should I allow it? how should I allow it? what interesting storeline can be generated for attaining it?).

To me, that's interesting and rich with narrative possibilities!

I suppose it's just easier on some DMs to simply go with the "if you find it in a published book, I'll allow it" approach, but I have never been that way. To be honest, it's one of the reasons PF1 is a hassle for me to DM - I am constantly having to sit with players during character creation and advancement going over where they got the material and whether or not it's suitable for my campaign.

As for magic items...whelp...here I will fall into the old curmudgeon category. I want/need rarity to create wonder with magic items and will probably error towards even less ability that the PF2 base indicates.

Poisons and harmfuls generally become black-market items where they are considered common by designation often, for example.

Other magic items are more driven by what the region/city/area offers by way of a market for magic. There just isn't that much demand for Enchantments 'R Us in every town across Golarion in my opinion.

But I have always taken the approach that finding and attaining magic should be, well, "magical." It should come with some excitement and joy, rather than expectation. Just my style, though.

And I'll be honest, the more modern/recent trend towards players building characters out with specific magic items as part of their character development, and thus expected (demanded sometimes) is not to my liking.

I do not mind in the least some grand macro view on character development - I consider that similar to a daydreaming about becoming an X. However, my campaigns generally encourage more organic growth of a character as they discover the world. I have seen players abandon their original plans as they discover or encounter something unexpected or interesting, and that's terrific!

It's also why my players often think about how their characters can be innovators and creators, questing for knowledge and skills that allow them to develop or make discoveries for themselves.

Again, though, that's not for everyone and I am sure some people would hate playing in my campaigns because I am simply not a "Yes" DM (I'd adhere more to the "Yes, but.." approach).

I am not sure why people react with "I am done with this edition" during playtesting because it's the feedback about what is needed, confusing, or otherwise unplayable that helps strengthen development and advancement of the playtest towards and more complete, playable final product.

Considering how far we've seen this edition advance so far, I'd say this kind of input (minus the ultimatums) is exactly what the devs need to hear about! :)

I agree, there needs to be some more tweaking to the alchemist class, including clarification on some aspects of it. I don't think it's quite the trainwreck some think it is, but it still needs refinement.

Clarification on the mutagens and possible remolding the class based on some of it's current lackings seems to be in order. While I don't want it to be the over-the-top balance wrecker it is in PF1, it needs some help still.

One thing I don't like or understand about this need for classes to be balanced when it comes to damage is that it ignores everything else that goes into a character. MMOs fall into this trap because everyone is concerned with damage meters.

4E tried to solve this by giving us more balanced defenses using more stats and then structuring classes that were fairly homogenous. 5E greatly improved martial classes to make them probably more effective (overall) than casters, imo, when all features are considered.

If a Wizard, for example, is going to be much easier to kill, more vulnerable to countermeasures, etc., maybe they should have more flash to their class.

It doesn't necessarily have to be just more "DPS", as long as there are other aspects they can shine at which make them interesting and valuable (such as a Cleric's ability to heal/cure).

However, if someone wants to play a Glass Cannon, there should be some real cannon to go with the glass, otherwise the options are really just playing a glass cannon or a steel cannon.

I guess I am just not sure I want PF2 to try to make all classes equal in every aspect, just make all classes interesting and worth playing.

This is a circular argument that'll never end because even looking at RAW and RAI, there's still interpretation involved.

A Me vs. Them GM is playing a valid game and has every right to play it that way. Same as a theater of the Mind style GM. Etc.

Heck, even look at how people interpret simple things like Attribute Scores. In one thread here, I was constantly being told that an INT of 7 made someone literally the dumbest person on earth. And here we have people saying an INT of 8 makes them quite capable of tactically playing with maximum efficiency. I have no idea what either of them think of an INT 18 character, or even higher.

I would say the bottom line is that input as to how the game is playing should take into account these reports (from TPK fests by killer GMS to walkovers by soft-touch GMs). See where the mean is, trying to do the best job of narrowing the gap between the extremes with rules updates, and go on.

There is never going to be a point where either side here is going to relent on how their interpretation isn't the right one, at least for them. It's wasted space and time out here and literally does nothing to improve the future of PF2.

100% with you here. Very well explained and thought through. Excellent feedback!

For all those who say it's metagame if the monsters can determine if a PC is dead: when was the last time your healbot has spend a spell slot to cast heal on your dead body?

... In my experience, in Path 1 it's even worse than that:

I have defended Colette's position, even if I think it is very metagamey because it's still a valid way to play. Conversely, I think it's dangerous to assume everyone does the same as players...

In my groups, players are encouraged to play their characters with emotion and passion as appropriate to their character. A point of emphasis is always not to worry about playing your character "perfectly", but as a living creature. I don't want 2 hour combats where everyone tensely plans out each action for most efficiency, I want my players to just do what makes sense to their character and in the heat of battle, act quickly (players will lose turns if they linger too long trying to come up with a "best plan").

It is for that reason, in my campaigns, you do see players rush foolishly to a dying ally ("I charge in to save my sister!"). It is also why I narrate with details ("you see Edrick go down, a terrible raking slash from the troglodyte's claws leave him dying, if not dead, upon the ground, his life giving fluids leaking out at an alarming rate").

When there are Hit Points to read, conditions applied, etc., I realize it's impossible to not recognize their impact on roleplay, but don't assume that all players break role because we all know it's a game we are playing.

(Warning: big wall of text ahead!)

There are interesting juxtapositions to RPGs, isn’t there?

There are people who absolutely see it as a competitive game with winners and losers and the dividing line is between Players and GMs. GMs win when they defeat the player characters, and characters win when they overcome the GM’s challenges. Others see it as a social game where it’s the shared experience that is the core of what makes it a game worth playing. Most probably fall somewhere in between. I know I never think of winners and losers, but I recognize that challenge does play a part in the experience and overcoming those challenges add to the collective.

There is also the infusion of Role-Playing that is much harder to define and adjudicate. Some largely ignore it treating the game as a tactical simulator, some reserve it only as a tool to overcome a social encounter, some infuse it into everything, and so forth. It’s impossible to make rules that define the imaginative infinite that comes with roleplaying, so it will always be a point of contention when it comes to RAW and RAI.

Blake does something I have no interest in, for example. Playing an entire world as equally focused and important as the “title characters.” Egad, that just sounds exhausting to me. My games are more story-telling oriented with the protagonists (PCs) as the stars and everything else existing only as necessary to serve that story. I am sure Blake would say that’s not pure Role-Playing, because I don’t RP the Ankheg or the Kobold Slinger like I do more important NPCs or Antagonists, and that I only generally concern myself about the living world beyond what the PC encounter – and to be honest, only so far is it helps evolve the story.

But I play a more cinematic, character driven game than some others might. And I am sure there are those who go even further than I do to weave a tale around the PCs.

I see the validity (as I have said before) in Colette’s style, and Blake’s too, and I am sure that Paizo hopes to offer a game that will satisfy as many consumers as possible. That’s why almost any input, as long as it’s not designed to be outright hostile or destructive to the sense of community that a good Playtest tries to nurture, is valuable and important.

ShadeRaven wrote:

Not to mention that I just don't get this us (GMs) vs them (PCs) attitude that someone mentioned earlier. Tacking dead PC sheets to the wall? Bragging about TPKs? I wonder if they have mounted lollipops taking from babies and stuffed fish they shot in a barrel, too?

GM: Oh man, how awesome am I?!? I just totally wrecked my 4-year-old niece in an arm-wrestling contest! You should have seen her tears as she ran off sobbing! I doubt she'll be able to use that arm for weeks!

You really think that is what is going on here? A GM that is happy about killing PCs? The topic alone suggests otherwise.

Yes, earlier someone mentioned that there are GMs who literally brag about TPKs and pin up character sheets of the fallen.

Because it's literally easier to kill PCs than it is to weave a good tale of heroism and triumph against seemingly overwhelming odds, I find it quite odd that any GM would want to brag about doing what comes without much effort.

Colette Brunel wrote:

I do not think there is any rule that stipulates that monsters are ignorant on whether a PC is dead or simply dying.

Every NPC/Monster has perfect and certain knowledge of the exact status of all PC characters and all creatures are "the most vicious creatures".

Meta gaming...

That's where it falls apart for me, too. I see a lot of metagaming involved. If creatures attack downed characters, it would only make sense to me that they would therefore also attack dead creatures because they couldn't be certain when dying 3 turned into dead. And there would also be times when they'd mistake dying 3 as dead. Etc.

So even if I was inclined to want to play to kill, as a GM, roleplaying them out as tough as possible to challenge the players, I still wouldn't go to that extent because if I am to discourage metagaming by the players, blatantly metagaming myself would be hypocritical.

Not to mention that I just don't get this us (GMs) vs them (PCs) attitude that someone mentioned earlier. Tacking dead PC sheets to the wall? Bragging about TPKs? I wonder if they have mounted lollipops taking from babies and stuffed fish they shot in a barrel, too?

GM: Oh man, how awesome am I?!? I just totally wrecked my 4-year-old niece in an arm-wrestling contest! You should have seen her tears as she ran off sobbing! I doubt she'll be able to use that arm for weeks!

ShadeRaven wrote:

Despite our vast differences in approach as GMs (I am a narrative, role-first, storyteller and she's a me vs. them, in-it-to-win-it GM)

There is a false dichotomy between the two. I try to implement a strong narrative and "production values" outside of combat. Good descriptions, good interplay between PCs and their environment, always prompting players for action, and so on.

Some of that even bleeds into combat itself. For example, I use individual portraits and tokens for enemies with unifying aesthetics for the sake of identification. Every single one of the undead had unique appearances.

It is just that grid-based tactical combat is a whole different beast.

I respectfully disagree. The narrative nature and role (not just images but actual roleplaying) is still quite maintainable in combat. Once I break out of that and become a metagamer, the whole thing falls apart to me. My players should feel as attached to their "characters" in combat as they do in social encounters.

Despite our vast differences in approach as GMs (I am a narrative, role-first, storyteller and she's a me vs. them, in-it-to-win-it GM), I find Colette's reports to be insightful and intriguing.

I also think Colette serves some good as a stress testing, metagaming extreme GM to see where the rules fall apart most easily.

I don't think that style can be entire accounted for when making an RPG, because (frankly) I have no earthy idea how any group of players could survive long in that scenario. As a GM, I could literally TPK my group on a nightly basis using any published material while staying within the rules simply because I have much greater forces and knowledge at my disposal.

That said, she has pointed out some potential flaws, some imbalances, and quite a few awkward rules that have value. And to her credit, she doesn't seem to care or back down when confronted with those of us who think she'd be a difficult GM to play under.

I am with Fuzzypaws (and others). Not only does it make sense, by and large, but to *me*, PF/D&D/RPGs are about having fun. It's not a simulation game to me, nor one about "winning" (certainly not as a GM).

How much fun is it for players to see me go out of my way to defeat them as individuals or as a collective? In my groups, not much. They understand when I don't focus-fire.. and let the "tank/defender" type actually be the hero they want to be even if I could easily go out of my way to annihilate an easier to kill character... because they enjoy playing heroes and extraordinary beings.

What I am sure of is that I could stay within the RAW and TPK any group in PF1, PF2, 5E, etc., if I set my mind to it.

All that said, I will never criticize another GM for how they narrate their table. If they want to make every creature vicious and play to kill, that's their right. And I certainly can't comment as to how their players enjoy that GMing style myself.

I would hesitate to call anyone a liar. There are plenty of innocent mistakes that can be made, but the greater impact sometimes is just GM style.

I played with GMs that believe it's their job to give the most challenging, "realistic" experience that have led to TPKs, and I've played with some that have a very light touch that allowed us to get out of seemingly hopeless situation - both of which ALSO still played within the RAW.

I have even vacillated a bit in between.

The point being, a killer GM can be so well within the rules and a Monty Haul GM equally so.