Pathfinder 2E Pathfinder 2e: Actual Play Experience

[kenada]

They do it in Age of Ashes during the most important social interaction of the fourth module. They've done it other areas here and there. The new APs seem to focus on allowing multiple skills to do things in slightly different ways that ultimately accomplish the same thing whether it's allowing Athletics or Thievery to disarm a hazard or using crafting or diplomacy to influence a leader. That's why I don't think it was intended like PF1 to make skills so limited.

That sounds like the influence stuff I mentioned. This discussion has prompted me to dig back into the rules in the skills chapter, and the more I do, the more it feels like there are two subsystems competing for the same space. On the one hand, you have skill actions which are implied not to be freely usable with different skills (unless they’re general skill actions), but then you have stuff (like the VP subsystem, or disabling hazards) that uses skill checks more freely.

Hazards are particularly interesting because there is a skill action to disable them, but there are also many hazards that aren’t disabled by Thievery or can be disabled with other skills. Because there aren’t skill actions for those other skills, it’s not actually clear what the cost should be if someone tries that method to disable a hazard during combat. I guess those methods just aren’t meant to be used in encounter mode?

My takeaway is if we’re in a fight, I’ll be sticking pretty closely to the prescribed list of skill actions. That makes sense since they have the costs and consequences enumerated right there, and I won’t accidentally intrude on someone’s niche if they’ve built into it. In exploration mode and non-combat encounter mode, I should be considering the other tools that are available. I’m a fan of the VP stuff in the GM, and I feel like a lot of the skill activities could better be replaced with VP. Tracking, for example, is boring.

You roll once an hour, so if it the tracks go on for a while, you’re bound to lose the trail. That’s rolling to failure. However, you could instead run it using VP. There might be a few things you need to discover, and the party can work together as they accumulate VP towards each discovery. That’s certainly bound to be less boring than everyone’s sitting there while the ranger or druid rolls Survival checks until they let the party down. (Of course, if the trail is short, just use Track.)

Thanks. You’ve given me a new perspective on how the skill system can work in PF2.

 

[Celtavian]

That sounds like the influence stuff I mentioned. This discussion has prompted me to dig back into the rules in the skills chapter, and the more I do, the more it feels like there are two subsystems competing for the same space. On the one hand, you have skill actions which are implied not to be freely usable with different skills (unless they’re general skill actions), but then you have stuff (like the VP subsystem, or disabling hazards) that uses skill checks more freely.

Hazards are particularly interesting because there is a skill action to disable them, but there are also many hazards that aren’t disabled by Thievery or can be disabled with other skills. Because there aren’t skill actions for those other skills, it’s not actually clear what the cost should be if someone tries that method to disable a hazard during combat. I guess those methods just aren’t meant to be used in encounter mode?

My takeaway is if we’re in a fight, I’ll be sticking pretty closely to the prescribed list of skill actions. That makes sense since they have the costs and consequences enumerated right there, and I won’t accidentally intrude on someone’s niche if they’ve built into it. In exploration mode and non-combat encounter mode, I should be considering the other tools that are available. I’m a fan of the VP stuff in the GM, and I feel like a lot of the skill activities could better be replaced with VP. Tracking, for example, is boring.

You roll once an hour, so if it the tracks go on for a while, you’re bound to lose the trail. That’s rolling to failure. However, you could instead run it using VP. There might be a few things you need to discover, and the party can work together as they accumulate VP towards each discovery. That’s certainly bound to be less boring than everyone’s sitting there while the ranger or druid rolls Survival checks until they let the party down. (Of course, if the trail is short, just use Track.)

Thanks. You’ve given me a new perspective on how the skill system can work in PF2.

Np. That is a good way to look at it. In combat, skill feats are there to provide player agency in power choice. I would cleave pretty closely to skills as intended in combat as that shows a degree of training and rewards choices that a player makes other than everyone picking Acrobatics for Cat's Fall. It gives the player the ability to say "Hey DM, I have this ability. I want to use it." As an example right now the goblin has that Deception ability where he gets to create a distraction and hide. He tells me when he gets to use it, I don't tell him. It's his power and he gets to use it. All I have to do is come up with some zany visual for how it works. It's his schtick.

Now outside of combat you have more leeway for thinking outside the box for how a skill might interact with a given scenario to allow the players to overcome it. You can have some fun with it letting players get creative.

 

[Celtavian]

This week my party was questioning whether a wizard would be useful at higher level. AoE damage would have really helped take down some of these high level multi-enemy encounters with fairly tough creatures. Some of these high level creatures when used in multiples can really dish a lot of damage. And AoE spell attacks would greatly accelerate their demise. Wizards seem the one class that can focus very strongly on offense whereas a cleric is usually healing and a bard is often using cantrips to boost the party, where the wizard would be unloading damage, often AoE damage, on the targets.

 

[CapnZapp]

The skills discussion is interesting. It confirms my impression there's a seriously wonky design misalignment in there somewhere.

 

[CapnZapp]

This week my party was questioning whether a wizard would be useful at higher level. AoE damage would have really helped take down some of these high level multi-enemy encounters with fairly tough creatures. Some of these high level creatures when used in multiples can really dish a lot of damage. And AoE spell attacks would greatly accelerate their demise. Wizards seem the one class that can focus very strongly on offense whereas a cleric is usually healing and a bard is often using cantrips to boost the party, where the wizard would be unloading damage, often AoE damage, on the targets.

I too seriously hope the Wizard will come into its own at double-digit levels.

(At low levels the Wizard class just doesn't contribute enough damage to justify including such a fragile class. And at low level the classic mage tricks that really provide quality of life improvements - teleportation, flight, or whatnot - just aren't present yet)

 

[dave2008]

On the one hand, you have skill actions which are implied not to be freely usable with different skills (unless they’re general skill actions), but then you have stuff (like the VP subsystem, or disabling hazards) that uses skill checks more freely.

What is the VP subsystem?

 

[kenada]

What is the VP subsystem?

The GMG introduces a Victory Points subsystem that it uses to build several other subsystems (influence, research, chases, infiltration, reputation). It’s kind of like a form of progress clocks.

VP can be used and accumulated in a couple of ways. For something like Reputation, it’s accumulated and tracked over time. Its purpose is to show the standing of the PCs with a faction, so it’s a bit more passive than other VP-based subsystems. For the other ones in the GMG, it’s accumulated over the course of an activity to track the PCs’ progress towards a goal — usually as the result of a successful skill check. The key is that there needs to be a way for the activity to fail. If the PCs can succeed eventually no matter what, then VP isn’t a good fit for that situation.

For example, the PCs accumulate Infiltration Points* to track their progress overcoming obstacles while they infiltrate an area. If they overcome all of the obstacles, the infiltration is successful. Think of an obstacle as a form of milestone on the overall IP track. However, they also accumulate Awareness Points the longer the take and as they draw attention to themselves (by failing their checks to overcome obstacles, doing something that would draw attention, etc). If they reach an AP milestone, there will be a complication in the infiltration they have to handle. If they accumulate too many AP, then they’re found out and have to deal with the consequences.

I’ve used VP in my game to handle a conversation between the party and a necromancer they met. They wanted to get information on where they were exploring from him, but he wasn’t necessarily going to give that up. I’m also planning to use Reputation to handle their relationships with the factions in town, and I’ve been considering doing something VP-based for clearing hexes (since one of the PCs wants to fortify their base camp).

--
* You’re encouraged to rename VP to something more evocative for your activity.

 

[JFranklin3000]

What is the VP subsystem?

Victory Points, the idea is that for complex challenges

The GMG introduces a Victory Points subsystem that it uses to build several other subsystems (influence, research, chases, infiltration, reputation). It’s kind of like a form of progress clocks.

VP can be used and accumulated in a couple of ways. For something like Reputation, it’s accumulated and tracked over time. Its purpose is to show the standing of the PCs with a faction, so it’s a bit more passive than other VP-based subsystems. For the other ones in the GMG, it’s accumulated over the course of an activity to track the PCs’ progress towards a goal — usually as the result of a successful skill check. The key is that there needs to be a way for the activity to fail. If the PCs can succeed eventually no matter what, then VP isn’t a good fit for that situation.

For example, the PCs accumulate Infiltration Points* to track their progress overcoming obstacles while they infiltrate an area. If they overcome all of the obstacles, the infiltration is successful. Think of an obstacle as a form of milestone on the overall IP track. However, they also accumulate Awareness Points the longer the take and as they draw attention to themselves (by failing their checks to overcome obstacles, doing something that would draw attention, etc). If they reach an AP milestone, there will be a complication in the infiltration they have to handle. If they accumulate too many AP, then they’re found out and have to deal with the consequences.

I’ve used VP in my game to handle a conversation between the party and a necromancer they met. They wanted to get information on where they were exploring from him, but he wasn’t necessarily going to give that up. I’m also planning to use Reputation to handle their relationships with the factions in town, and I’ve been considering doing something VP-based for clearing hexes (since one of the PCs wants to fortify their base camp).

--
* You’re encouraged to rename VP to something more evocative for your activity.

I did one with Investigation Points, where the party was investigating a village for clues. The nice thing is you can do something like the chase rules where each specific thing they investigate needs a certain number of points to discover, and then the number of points they accumulate over the entire investigation determines what level of detail for what they were investigating do they discover.

 

[dave2008]

The GMG introduces a Victory Points subsystem that it uses to build several other subsystems (influence, research, chases, infiltration, reputation). It’s kind of like a form of progress clocks.

VP can be used and accumulated in a couple of ways. For something like Reputation, it’s accumulated and tracked over time. Its purpose is to show the standing of the PCs with a faction, so it’s a bit more passive than other VP-based subsystems. For the other ones in the GMG, it’s accumulated over the course of an activity to track the PCs’ progress towards a goal — usually as the result of a successful skill check. The key is that there needs to be a way for the activity to fail. If the PCs can succeed eventually no matter what, then VP isn’t a good fit for that situation.

For example, the PCs accumulate Infiltration Points* to track their progress overcoming obstacles while they infiltrate an area. If they overcome all of the obstacles, the infiltration is successful. Think of an obstacle as a form of milestone on the overall IP track. However, they also accumulate Awareness Points the longer the take and as they draw attention to themselves (by failing their checks to overcome obstacles, doing something that would draw attention, etc). If they reach an AP milestone, there will be a complication in the infiltration they have to handle. If they accumulate too many AP, then they’re found out and have to deal with the consequences.

I’ve used VP in my game to handle a conversation between the party and a necromancer they met. They wanted to get information on where they were exploring from him, but he wasn’t necessarily going to give that up. I’m also planning to use Reputation to handle their relationships with the factions in town, and I’ve been considering doing something VP-based for clearing hexes (since one of the PCs wants to fortify their base camp).

--
* You’re encouraged to rename VP to something more evocative for your activity.

OK I have the GMG, but I haven't gone through it in depth. I will have to check that out.

 

[JmanTheDM]

PF2e GM here, reporting back after 2 more sessions under my belt - now at 5, every-other-week 4 hour sessions into Fall of Plaguestone using the official module on Roll20. I apparently run slow games - we're only at the 1/2 way point in chapter 2. we average 1.5 combats/session. Combats are taking on average 2 hours to run. Lots of RP, world building, discovery, and personalization / customization of the core module to make it our own.

thoughts since posting a few weeks ago:

• as a brand new PF GM and player (of any edition), but having hundreds of sessions of D&D 5e, the math is still taking some effort to get my head around. Level 1 and 2 D&D, typical bonuses are like +4, +5. PF2e PC's seem to be closer to +7's and monsters have been consistently in the +9-+11 range. numbers aren't bad, calibrating my brain and intuitively understanding what is a challenge or reasonable is still taking some efforts.
• oh god the conditions and traits are still really challenging. there's just so many of them! here is where I'm struggling the most.
• Encounters are hard. part of this is my fault, as in a typical D&D game, I add substantially more difficulty in any encounter (Eg. more monsters, higher HP, environmental challenges). with 5 players in my group, the module designed for 4, and the very first encounter in this module being a pretty easy romp, I started ramping up other encounters. This has made for extremely challenging encounters that I'm now regretting. nobody has died, but boy, have the PC's been dropping a LOT. there have been 2 times now that a PC or animal companion has reached death 3 and it was only a miracle that they didn't die. Great drama - but I don't think it's good for EVERY. SINGLE. FIGHT.
• Encounters are Deadly. with a level 1 or level 2 encounter with +11 to-hit, there are a LOT of crits. the last encounter I had had a [redacted] attack a group. 2 hits, 2 critical's, 2 PC's dropped. the party cleric commented "boy, I sure feel important in Pathfinder". he loves how important his battle medicine an healing is, but the others - not so sure...
• my poor player playing a sorcerer - can't hit a damn thing. I think there have been 2 sessions, 8 hours of play, when not casting a magic missile spell is just getting frustrated with his failure to hit, and the monster's saves at everything else. The Ranger faced this as well this week - but has been a bit more effective overall. I don't know how to fix this right now. but who want's to play a PC that's consistently under-performing?
• we all love how spell casting works. in fact, we all would have LOVED to have all spells follow the More Actions = Different effects model you see with Magic Missiles and heal as examples. IMO, this is as great a mechanic as the 3-action mechanic is, and I'd LOVE to see PF lean into this more!
• we all love the 3-action system. the battlefields feel super dynamic. I don't normally see a fighter-type retreat off of the front line to go to the Cleric to get healing. normally I see a call for help for the Cleric go to the front line. Last session, the Monk got beat-up a bit, retreated back to the cleric, did a ranged attack, and waited. basically because with 3-actions, he felt confident that he could disengage, get help, and re-engage without sacrificing 2 turns or other actions.
• Lots of rules are being missed. this is just mastery and the fact that I'm playing D&D and PF2e, and well, they are close enough that there is a lot of bleed from one system to another. Thank god for a couple of online sites where quick rule lookups can be made. the CRB is really good, but not good for quick checks - as there are so many if/then conditions that require referencing multiple sections to get the entire interaction.
• Persistent damage is HARD. the Battle with [redacted], causes Bleed damage that accumulates. needing to succeed at a Flat DC 15 check = 75% chance of failure = HP's were draining really fast. and there's not a lot that can be done to mitigate this during combat. Sure, the cleric can Medicine skill but that only triggers a new check with a 75% chance of failure. Granted, 2 checks/turn is better than 1, but those are still tough odds!
• we play pretty loose in Encounter mode and outside of combat for what Skills resolve and what you can do. I also play VERY loose with the Initiative rules. I literally had someone roll initiative using an attack roll because that PC was "Defending" before the encounter started. I'm trying very hard to be as flexible and creative here for PC's who come up with interesting tasks between encounters to reward their creativity but also really lean into a differentiation between systems. We've earned income using Religion to give sermons. we've used a background to also earn income. I know that this is not RAW, and kind of leans into House rule territory, but my instincts are telling me that the skills system is a framework for creativity and to reward the use of skills in non standard ways. doesn't this intrude on Feats? I have no idea. I guess I look at it this way. if you are someone good at driving, you may get lucky from time to time to swerve out of the way. if you are a trained stunt-driver, your training kicks in to swerve and it's a technique that you can recall. the difference is the difference between instinct and luck vs. training and knowing where best to apply your training. Can someone find a "loophole" to exploit a skill in lieu of investing in a feat? Sure! will they have fun and feel awesome? likely? will it break the game? I really don't think so. and for my home game, my only measure of success is for the players to leave the table at the end of a night happy, having had fun, and feeling like they accomplished something.

tl;dr: it remains a VERY fun to play and run system. there is general agreement that PF2e is very good. between sessions talk is turning more towards how to level and what to build - which is different/strange from a D&D perspective. combats are very tough - too tough the way I'm building them - and I need to make a few less challenging. what started as a potential 1-shot not knowing my players appetite for PF, has tuned into a group of 6 (myself included) non-PF players who are very engaged with this story and want to see it through, and is digressing into talking about what comes next, after Plaguestone ends. so, a win!

Cheers,

J.