Turn based or not turn based?

[ZinxLinkk]

Which combat is better?

[MrFrengLitch]

I played both and I can say they're both decent. Turn based mode is a bit confusing though.
I can also say (atleast for me) real time mode is easier than turn based mode. Also the game is made for real time mode first.

[AzureTheGamerKobold]

D&D was designed as a turn based game... while its MUCH slower its how the game was meant to be played. Alot of rules in DnD just dont work well as real time, flanking being a big one.

Originally posted by MrFrenglitch:

I played both and I can say they're both decent. Turn based mode is a bit confusing though.
I can also say (atleast for me) real time mode is easier than turn based mode. Also the game is made for real time mode first.

No the SYSTEM was made for turn based, Pathfinder and D&D are a turn based system, always have been. The fact is making it real time required obfuscating many rules to make it work.

[Kaelmato]

Personally I alternate between the two, real time when fighting non-important, easily killable creatures to save time and turn based when fighting big fights/story battles as the turn based mode gives me a more authentic feel of the original tabletop game it's based on.
Too bad turn based is riddled with bugs atm.

[MrFrengLitch]

Originally posted by AzureTheGamerKobold:

D&D was designed as a turn based game... while its MUCH slower its how the game was meant to be played. Alot of rules in DnD just dont work well as real time, flanking being a big one.

Originally posted by MrFrenglitch:

I played both and I can say they're both decent. Turn based mode is a bit confusing though.
I can also say (atleast for me) real time mode is easier than turn based mode. Also the game is made for real time mode first.

No the SYSTEM was made for turn based, Pathfinder and D&D are a turn based system, always have been. The fact is making it real time required obfuscating many rules to make it work.

Im pretty sur the original Pathfinder Kingmaker game was real time. Maybe I forgot and there was a turn based mode too. I played it real time though

[Gio]

Everyone is playing turn based.

[Viper]

turn base if you want to be able to control your strategy better. Real time is Chaos..But goes much faster if you want to take less time in battles.

[Viper]

Originally posted by MrFrenglitch:

Originally posted by AzureTheGamerKobold:

D&D was designed as a turn based game... while its MUCH slower its how the game was meant to be played. Alot of rules in DnD just dont work well as real time, flanking being a big one.



No the SYSTEM was made for turn based, Pathfinder and D&D are a turn based system, always have been. The fact is making it real time required obfuscating many rules to make it work.

Im pretty sur the original Pathfinder Kingmaker game was real time. Maybe I forgot and there was a turn based mode too. I played it real time though

they patched it to have turn based..So it is both..

[Dorok]

But is it really a good turn based system? I don't remind the first had a so good turn based system.

With turn based, rules need be adapted differently than with RTwP. First game combats RTwP was basic compared to Temple of elemental Evil TB (D&D 3.5e). So either Pathfinder simplified a lot DéD 3.5e for combats either the RTwP adaptation used many simplification.

For the problem of very different pace requesting adapts combats to it, perhaps to avoid annoying trash combats you can switch to RTwP as suggested some post above. But for rules...

[MrFrengLitch]

I get that. But that means the original the Pathfinder game was meant to be real time. Hence why I say real time is supposed to be the original mode. Strictly speaking for the games. Not tabletop.

[ApathicAlpaca]

I do real-time only because the fights are hilariously easy and turn-based would be waste of time.

I'm beginning to wish I had chosen higher difficulty from the start. Is it normal you just sweep through everything on normal difficulty? Most enemies take 2-3 hits then go bye-bye in a big crunchy plop sound (critical strike?). Is there ANY change in content based on difficulty, some reward for braving higher dangers, or is it just better enemy stats/numbers and you patting your own shoulder for a job well done?

[MrFrengLitch]

Try the Core difficulty. It feels good and not RNG fest.

[wirednight]

If you're using AoE spells, then you're going to want to use turn based. If all you're going it melee zerging things down, then non-turned base is fine. Nothing worse then having your caster cast a fireball spell at a group of enemies, then suddenly one of your party decides just as you cast it, that it wants to run over and get a fire bath, before you can stop them.

[Dorok]

My question if this PF2 not the first, if I remind well the very special TB system added in Pillars of Eternity 2 also later like PF1 added some rules change, but only a few. So I wonder for PF2. I appreciate the TB effort but is it really serious, ToEE 3.5e combats are quite good, but there's many possibilities not in PF1 or simplified in PF1, so I wonder for this PF2 TB.

[ApathicAlpaca]

Sadly, changing it to Core from a different original setting means no achievements, right? I started with normal, if I go Core now I get no achvs?

[Dorok]

Originally posted by wirednight:

If you're using AoE spells, then you're going to want to use turn based. If all you're going it melee zerging things down, then non-turned base is fine. Nothing worse then having your caster cast a fireball spell at a group of enemies, then suddenly one of your party decides just as you cast it, that it wants to run over and get a fire bath, before you can stop them.

Why not, it's a simplification but I can understand it. Not all TB manage AOE like that, some require more than a turn to cast AOE. for D&D I don't know, even less for PF (the IP).