Book 1: The Deadliest Zoo in the World (long)

So our rookie cops (2 martials, 1 ranged, 1 caster) are sent into the Knight’s Menagerie at the Radiant Festival to recapture some escaped animals. We’re peacekeepers, and we’re encouraged to look for ways to capture and contain our targets non-lethally, which the Player’s Guide emphasized. We certainly made characters with that in mind, and the initial bar fight bore that out. Should be interesting!

We wrangle a surprisingly dangerous cockatrice, but manage to overcome its deadly attacks with some difficulty and some clever tactics. A tough fight, but okay.

Then we move on to some noise in the forge. A rust monster? Really? It trashes essential gear for half the party, and its free incidental AOO alone can take down a PC with a single casual swipe. Holy cow, these things are deadly! Maybe we should skip the cute lure-and-trap ideas and just focus on putting these beasts down…

And over here is… WTF? An owlbear? We’re level 1 here! This is crazy! And there’s no clever tactics option, it’s just a straight-out smackdown against something that’s way above our weight class. “Holy crap, this thing’s got a +11 attack bonus!” one player pointed out, courtesy of Roll20's chat log. We checked; yep, +11. That’s insane. That’s roughly twice the attack bonus of a PC. We looked at the previous critters; they had the same +11, and similarly super-high ACs and save bonuses. What was going on here? Why were level 1 characters fighting level 3 or 4 monsters—a whole string of them?

More and more deadly monsters kept coming, each of them easily capable of tearing us to shreds in short order. All with that absurd +11 attack bonus, ensuring that they never, ever missed. All of their abilities were well above anything a level 1 PC could counter, and forget trying to figure out any tactics: Recall Knowledge of 16? “You fail and know nothing about this.”

We quickly realized that “critical success” was a rule that existed only for the monsters’ benefit, not ours. We’d never be able to roll 10 higher than the target DC for anything-—not a Recall Knowledge check, not a poison/acid save, and certainly never an enemy AC. The highest number any level 1 PC could theoretically roll was 26; these monsters were way out of that league. At one point, I even heard the dreaded phrase that had convinced me to walk away from PFS Organized Play tables: “Might as well take all three attacks; my only hope is a nat 20 anyway.”

No doubt about it: It was going to be a loooong session, and all of it was going to be nothing but combat. No diplomacy, no investigation, no story; just an aboveground dungeon-crawl, slogging from one bloody and hopeless fight to the next.

So the mood shifted. The laughter and clever strategies died out, as did any attempts to do nonlethal damage or capture the creatures unharmed. An NPC tried to babble something at us about the ringmaster and the zoo vet at one point, but we were too beaten and bloody to care by then. And what difference did it make, really? What’s the next death-dealing monstrosity headed our way?

The pattern repeated: monster takes three strikes, all of them hitting, often with a crit thrown in. By the end of the first round, one or maybe two of the martials have dropped (if not by Round 1, then definitely by Round 2). The martials had made as many desperate attacks as possible during the brief seconds they were conscious in hopes of dealing at least a little damage, because why waste actions on anything else? The other two PCs then scramble desperately trying to stabilize them with no viable healing options (Medicine was used up long ago), and the GM looks for ways to be lenient and allow them extra actions, time, or other leeway to avoid a TPK… again. Between fights, we pool our gold to see if we can afford to go buy some potions or scrolls or some sort of healing, because Medicine has a cooldown.

Water snake. Ankhrav. Almiraj. This isn’t a wacky zoo escape; it’s Jurassic Park, and the PCs are in an exhaustive, brutal struggle for their very survival. The frustrated players aren’t even considering capture anymore; every battle ends with the terrifying monsters chopped into pieces, and often ground viciously into the dirt afterward. “Screw taking them alive!” snarls one player. “These killers aren’t going to threaten anyone ever again, even if I have to burn this whole place to the ground.”

At the end, the GM feebly announces we’ve leveled up to 2(!) and reminds us that we can redesign our characters if we want. One of the martial PC players declares he’ll drop his roleplay-friendly concept and try to come back with something ‘a bit deadlier,’ looking into ways to make a more efficient killing machine. The caster says he’s rethinking the myth that 2E parties don’t require a dedicated healer. Another player’s unsure if he even wants to continue with 2E at all. Nobody discusses the story, because there wasn’t any.

And I’m left wondering how this outcome lines up with what the designers of Agents of Edgewatch wanted to accomplish with their ‘nonlethal peacekeepers and agents of justice’ adventure path.

There are definitely some gnarly fights in the menagerie, but it sounds like your group had a particularly rough time. That sucks :(

Did you replace your armor and weapons after the rust monster fight, or go into the zoo underequipped?

When I ran this, they had a rough time with the rust monster, water snake, and ankhrav, but only the last of these felt unfair (the acid breath hit them pretty hard).

I think the big issue with the menagerie is that its essentially a critical emergency that demands immediate attention, but the players really need a chance to rest up part way through it. The book suggests letting them do so when the critters outside the zoo are dealt with, but my players were roleplaying diligent watch members who were eager to save people in peril.

And over here is… WTF? An owlbear? We’re level 1 here! This is crazy!

Welcome to Pathfinder 2.

Every adventure path is like this.

Heck, even even the introductory demo adventure Torment and Legacy is like this, meant to be played by complete beginners.

As someone who ran this (champion, monk, magus, sorcerer), what is the group doing to mitigate damage? A monster getting off three Strikes is the worst scenario possible, so ending a turn next to it is what you never want to do. You yourself pointed out the higher attack rolls that higher level enemies will have.

If you're coming from PF1, it's a hefty change in tactics. You aren't locked in melee anymore and optimal strategy isn't "do as much damage as possible before the opponent can do the same." I know that my group used a lot of tripping, tanglefoots, and even a grease spell to get through. The light clicked on during the cockatrice fight after the sorcerer made a Recall Knowledge to discover that the monster was actually quite slow. With everyone staying away from it, it only managed to slow the monk (critically, might I add) who then played keep away with her remaining action.

To clarify: I'm not asking for tips on how to be more effective combat monster. I'm asking why it's necessary.

If we need more sophisticated tactics to deliver greater damage and stay alive longer against much deadlier monsters in 2E, fine... but why is that the case? Why does Agents of Edgewatch suggest the exact opposite in the Player's Guide writeup? Why even bother talking about nonlethal attacks, or serving the community as peacekeepers, or negotiation and diplomacy options, if the opposition is going to be so mindlessly and relentlessly brutal?

And don't say "That's just how 2E works, it's unavoidable." CR still exists, and so does good writing. There was no reason to throw level 3 and 4 monsters at a level 1 party here, much less make them all mindless rage-monsters while removing any NPCs or possible sources of aid from the scene. This was designed as a meat grinder. It is not what it said on the tin.

Calybos1 wrote:

And over here is… WTF? An owlbear? We’re level 1 here! This is crazy!

Welcome to Pathfinder 2.

Every adventure path is like this.

Heck, even even the introductory demo adventure Torment and Legacy is like this, meant to be played by complete beginners.

** spoiler omitted **

And I'm sure complete beginners are just loving it. "You squeal helplessly as it crushes you with a casual swing. SPLAT. Thanks for playing, come back next time for more fun!"

To clarify: I'm not asking for tips on how to be more effective combat monster. I'm asking why it's necessary.

And don't say "That's just how 2E works, it's unavoidable." CR still exists, and so does good writing. There was no reason to throw level 3 and 4 monsters at a level 1 party here, much less make them all mindless rage-monsters while removing any NPCs or possible sources of aid from the scene. This was designed as a meat grinder. It is not what it said on the tin.

No, it's not unavoidable. It's not "necessary".

But for good or bad, that's what the encounter guidelines lead to. (Core Rulebook 488-489)

What you need (and not only you) is for the guidelines to be more nuanced, specifically at the lowest levels.

That is because while a high level party can reliably take on even a L+5 monster, a low level party is struggling mightily with even a L+3 monster. At level 1 even a L+2 monster is (as you have discovered) a mortal threat.

The guidelines for Extreme encounters simply aren't sophisticated enough.

I don't think the writers intentionally set out to create a "meat grinder". They are just instructed to follow the encounter guidelines.

I predict that Paizo will slowly tweak their internal guidelines as more Adventure Paths are written and more feedback is given. Maybe they will update the official public guidelines too.

Each of the 2nd Edition APs has had an early encounter which destroyed a lot of parties. I really wonder what is going on with the authors' control of difficulty.

My group bailed on 2nd Edition in large part because the playtest control of difficulty level was so demoralizingly bad. I had thought, though, that with experience with the system this problem would go away.

My spouse says, the system is for high-level play and doesn't actually work well at the low levels. (When we tried a first level Starfinder scenario we had the same feeling. It was too brutally hard to be any fun. We thought that around 3rd or 5th things might improve a lot.) Maybe a practical solution is to start PCs at 3rd, both in Second Edition and in Starfinder. We've been doing that in First Edition for some time and it generally seems okay. The PCs can show a little flair in the early going, rather than having to play super carefully, and this is good for setting up characterization. (If making an in-character but sub-optimal decision will get you killed, you probably won't; then the character never develops much personality.)

Encounter guidelines being what they are means engaging with the actual mechanics of the game. You're not supposed to win level + 2 encounters without playing the game with an understanding of changing up tactics. It's not asking for people to be the best tacticians, but to engage with the system (AoOs are gone for a reason and we've got three actions to play with).

As for not meeting NPCs and potential roleplaying encounters/other ways to handle the out of control animals, what did you try? Did your GM remove Telomand, Raisa, Nils, Remy, Emmaline Greengold, Parva Maock, or the numerous merchants huddling in fear in the wagons and nearby buildings? My players had a great time with them (especially Remy).

The criticism I had for the Menagerie was that it was weirdly front-loaded, with most of the challenge existing outside of the gates. From a story perspective, it makes sense, but as a player it could sure be disheartening. I disagree that the area is an endless slog of combat, but that might be because I ran it as written: Cadets arriving on the scene, rescuing people from wild animals. I didn't run it as a breathless chase through a dungeon.

Each of the 2nd Edition APs has had an early encounter which destroyed a lot of parties. I really wonder what is going on with the authors' control of difficulty.

My group bailed on 2nd Edition in large part because the playtest control of difficulty level was so demoralizingly bad. I had thought, though, that with experience with the system this problem would go away.

It is because the encounter guidelines does not distinguish between different party levels.

The reason this happens is because while a monster two levels above you is arguably "reasonable" at every level from 2 to 20, it is decidedly lethal at level 1.

Just like a monster five levels higher than you is possible at level ~15 and above, while utterly unthinkable at single-digit levels.

Of course, you are free to ask "but why have Paizo not yet caught this and issued new instructions to their writers?"

My best guess is: because APs are written well in advance. Like a full year before publication. I don't know this, I'm just saying it is not inconceivable the writers just did what they were told, which is "there's nothing wrong with a monster two levels above the party level".

At just about any other level than the first, this would be true.

Encounter guidelines being what they are means engaging with the actual mechanics of the game. You're not supposed to win level + 2 encounters without playing the game with an understanding of changing up tactics. It's not asking for people to be the best tacticians, but to engage with the system (AoOs are gone for a reason and we've got three actions to play with).

Sorry but this approach has its limits.

It all too easily falls into the trap of blaming dead parties for not playing well enough. (Not saying you fall into it, Ruzza, only that the follow-up discussion all to easily will)

It would suit us better if we instead just plain acknowledge that few D&D games (since the crude old OD&D days, at any rate) have ever featured such lethal play as a level 1 party facing a Severe encounter.

Is this wrong? No, "wrong" is too strong a word for it.

In the age of 5th Edition, however, where most newcomers to Pathfinder 2 are utterly blindsided to the challenge level (just like this thread proves), it sure comes across as a surprising business decision.

My spouse says, the system is for high-level play and doesn't actually work well at the low levels. (When we tried a first level Starfinder scenario we had the same feeling. It was too brutally hard to be any fun. We thought that around 3rd or 5th things might improve a lot.) Maybe a practical solution is to start PCs at 3rd, both in Second Edition and in Starfinder.

In the interests of constructive suggestions, might I say it isn't the system that's broken here.

If you - at first level - stick to Moderate encounters featuring a single level 2 monster and never any level 3 or 4 monsters, I think the system works well enough.

It is still dangerous, and if you charge right into a nest of Giant Rats or Kobolds you can still die.

But you can't die from just an unlucky die roll, at no fault of your own. Monsters aren't completely outclassing you, leading to the dispiriting sense of helplessness.

Of course, if you play an official AP rather than an adventure of your own creation, you will need to modify it.

Consider it an alternative to skipping the lowest levels. Good luck with your gaming.

If you - at first level - stick to Moderate encounters featuring a single level 2 monster and never any level 3 or 4 monsters, I think the system works well enough.

It is still dangerous, and if you charge right into a nest of Giant Rats or Kobolds you can still die.

But you can't die from just an unlucky die roll, at no fault of your own. Monsters aren't completely outclassing you, leading to the dispiriting sense of helplessness.

That right there is the problem I was getting at--the sense of helpless frustration that killed off the fun factor we were hoping for. Thank you for putting it so clearly.

And thanks for the comments and suggestions, everyone. I appreciate your perspective.

When we tried a first level Starfinder scenario we had the same feeling. It was too brutally hard to be any fun.

Our group had the same experience with Starfinder and quickly dropped it for the same reason--summed up as "We can never hit, and the enemy can never miss. Why bother?" Somewhere, someone at Paizo has gotten the idea that Lots of Tougher Fights is the same thing as a better game, and there's at least one group of players who disagree.

We enjoy clever stories, lots of roleplay interaction, some skill use (such as investigation), comedy, and the occasional action-adventure scene (which will probably involve some combat too). Paizo doesn't seem oriented that way recently, and it's a concern.

As has already been said, the Adventure Paths are written a long way in advance and the writers are still getting used to it. The monster levels in the Zoo are similar to what you got in 1st edition adventure paths. Single target level +3 and Level +2 fights were common and relatively easy to suceed at in first edition but are brutal in 2e.

Over time I fully expect that will start to change. I suspect Agents of Edgewatch is the last of them as I'm sure I read somewhere that the writers submit the adventures 18 months or so before publication.

In the meantime I use the Creature tables from the Gamesmastery Guide and use them to adjust numbers on the fly to make the encounters more sensible

A non-spoilery comment to that last spoiler comment:

Sure level + 3 means "major boss".

And when you are level 5, say, you can indeed get a "major boss vibe" from a level 8 creature.

The guidelines were written with that assumption in mind for every level, but at level 1 it simply doesn't hold true.

There a level 4 creature is insanely lethal. Nothing suggests this was what the guideline writers intended.

Arguably there are no good reasons to feature a level + 3 monster at level 1. Not for a minor encounter, not for a major boss, not at all.

I agree. It’s why I changed it when I started running it. However the writer not only picked a high level creature but then gave it the elite adjustment which is what brings it up to level 4. They must have wanted a level +3 encounter to give it the elite adjustment as it makes no sense to add it otherwise.

A single level 3, or even, as a boss, level 4 creature is workable for level 1 PCs to fight. It's rough, but far from impossible. Zapp's overstating the difficulty of such a fight a bit if the PCs utilize good tactics and expend sufficient resources. And I don't feel like the other APs have too many problems in this regard, at least not at 1st level.

Three such fights in a row, however, is much harder, and is a rougher deal than adventurers usually are, and probably, as Helvellyn notes, due to inexperience with the system.

I, too, would ditch the Elite adjustment from the Rust Monster, but I will note that rust monsters, if played properly, are not really super dangerous. The Rust Monster is clearly intended to primarily attack PC gear, and they immediately get that replaced by the reward for defeating it, making it a tough fight, but less so than most level 4 enemies. If it were the only fight I'd probably leave the Elite...but after two other tough fights with few breaks? Yeah, it needs to lose that Elite template.

Was there an option for distracting monsters? Say get some metal and toss it at the Rust Monster until it is full and able to get into a cage.(Follow the horseshoes)

Was there an option for distracting monsters? Say get some metal and toss it at the Rust Monster until it is full and able to get into a cage.(Follow the horseshoes)

Not officially, no. He's loose in a smithy already, so this'd be tricky to engineer anyway. Clever PCs can always try things like this, but the adventure makes no specific provision for it.

A single level 3, or even, as a boss, level 4 creature is workable for level 1 PCs to fight. It's rough, but far from impossible.

Nobody is saying it's impossible though.

I am confident experienced Pathfinder players that treat the encounter like a very tough challenge, map out their every move, count movement squares, and maximize probabilities and generally think out of the box (=refuse to let the monster apply its main attacks) in myriad ways can pull it off reliably without getting anyone killed.

But that hardly exonerates Paizo.

Every hardened veteran PF2 player is a green newcomer first. And if you come from D&D 5th Edition (which seems exceedingly likely in the year of 2020) you stand an overwhelming risk of either having your character killed or leaving the encounter feeling desperate and crushed by a mind-bogglingly powerful enemy. Or both.

The question isn't whether the fight is literally impossible.

The question is "is this what Paizo intended?"
The question is "is this what Paizo think its customers want?"

And maybe most pertinent:

"Is this how Paizo thinks they will recruit new players to the game?"

Was there an option for distracting monsters? Say get some metal and toss it at the Rust Monster until it is full and able to get into a cage.(Follow the horseshoes)

It's a s Deadmanwalking says.

The encounter is meant as a combat encounter, not as an improvisational puzzle.

(Agents of Edgewood does contain encounters where peaceful solutions are suggested. This is not one of them)

"Is this what Paizo intended?" I would say so.

Look, if you build a framework that allows for more versatility, action, and mobility in combat but then only give players encounters that are easily solved by standing and striking, you're doing a disservice to the game you designed.

"Is this what Paizo think[s] its customers want?" They seem to be doing alright in the sales department?

You seem to be saying that new players would be daunted by the challenge of learning how the three action system works in PF2 and how to get the most out of it. Or that you're saying that new players just want to strike and hit and they shouldn't be expected to engage with the rest of the game. I'm not sure.

I have had three groups since PF2's playtest and launch, along with participating in PFS (player-side). My first group was made up of people who never played a tabletop RPG before in their lives. We ran AoA and we came to "That Fight," and let me tell you that they got beat pretty badly. I mean, they absolutely won and didn't even get a single person knocked down to dying, but they got beat pretty badly. The barbarian stood in melee and got crit and smacked around and was on the verge of going down several times. The harm cleric complained that he had to use the few heal spells he had just to keep the barbarian alive. The alchemist and sorcerer stayed as far away as they could and got in reliable damage with bomb splash and magic missile and just wished they could use bigger things. The next week they came back and my sorcerer noted that they could "use Intimidate to give opponents frightened" and that the barbarian was using a reach weapon with Trip, so he should be using that. Suddenly, my players were looking up weapon traits, different actions, and changing spell lists. (Let me tell you how quickly the sorcerer moved away from "Every spell slot exists to deal damage.")

My second group was made up of 5e converts and the occasional GURPs player (she took to the system much more quickly). It wasn't long before they, too, started handling fights smarter (with the exception that their martial characters love to stand within reach of big bad monsters). And when I say "it wasn't long," I definitely mean "before they reached level 2."

My third group is a number of experienced PF2 players picked up from forums and reddit for PbP. They came in with plans and have been executing them fairly well (with the exception of "split all the oozes in a room and then fireball them" which ended up with a "too many oozes, oh god oh no"). Funnily enough, all three of these groups use the system to its fullest from what I can tell. They still struggle with level + 2 and level + 3, but that's something that - in my opinion - is a feature, not a flaw. After decades of strolling through dungeons and having players laugh off villains because there was very little way to actually challenge groups, I think Paizo has built a system with a working difficulty scale.

As DMW notes, a rust monster isn't actually an effective powerhouse on its own, especially when the blacksmith, Mr. Maock, reoutfits the group immediately afterwards. The owlbear is a bit more severe, even with the weak adjustment, but is mostly a direct fight of (presumably) four on one. The cockatrice requires a bit of thinking, but is quite a pushover compared to the owlbear. The ankhrav, well, that's quite worthy of being "the boss" of the area.

I was thinking about how writers include difficult monsters and wanted to include this bit from The Slithering behind a spoiler.

I wrote all of that, both the spoiler and the above, to say that "Yes, encounters are harder. Yes, I believe this is intended. Yes, I believe this has been asked for by the community for some time. And from personal experience, game encounters and mechanics never draw new players into a game - GMs do." Now, if a GM feels that the encounters are too difficult and doesn't like the system because of it, that's on them. If players have having trouble with the system, the tools are there to engage with the system. If they don't want that, then... well, yeah there are games out there that give them what they want. Paizo has proven that they aren't hurting for new customers.

Disclaimer: This is not a "You don't like this game, so play another one," post. It's really "Play the game that you want if you don't like this playstyle."

I have to agree that many early level encounters in PF2 APs are just way too brutal. As a DM, I roll behind the screen specifically so I can tone down the number of times the party gets critted at these levels. As they level up, I start to do that less and less. By level 3, we are basically playing straight.

This is all with me giving the party 5e style spell slots, plenty of hero points, and a generous amount of added magic items and consumables.

At the end of the day, there is no point in blaming the AP though. Ultimately, the DM has to treat everything (the rules, the adventures, etc) as suggestions and then adjust them to meet the needs of the party.

First level players sport a +7 to hit (1 level +2 trained, +4 stat) not a +6, similarly with recall knowledge checks. Rust monsters have a DC 18 Occultism DC to have some basic info like: It will rust your ass.

That's an 11 on a dice check for a character. Not that hard to get.

As for hitting them, yeah, PF2E assumes that you will crit agaisn't higher level creatures only on a 20. On a 18-20 if you're a fighter agaisn't level +1 creatures because fighters fight good (only class with +9 at level 1).

With those monsters you have to take advantage of tactics (such as flanking which increases both your chance to hit and your chance to crit) and in those levels shield block is gold and saves lives.

Debuff is also appropriate.

As the DM, you can always reduce the hardness of encounters if your party is suboptimal (no role management, no skill diversification, etc). My party had a hard time with the zoo, but they pushed through without casualties.

Fayati alumnur and her insane rapier main gauche combo from chapter 2 proved a much more lethal encounter. (If she flanks a target she has a VERY high chance to crit, and if she crits with her main gauch follow up strike she deals 4d4+16+12d6, lethal for most level 6 characters)

First level players sport a +7 to hit (1 level +2 trained, +4 stat) not a +6, similarly with recall knowledge checks. Rust monsters have a DC 18 Occultism DC to have some basic info like: It will rust your ass.

That's an 11 on a dice check for a character. Not that hard to get.

As for hitting them, yeah, PF2E assumes that you will crit agaisn't higher level creatures only on a 20. On a 18-20 if you're a fighter agaisn't level +1 creatures because fighters fight good (only class with +9 at level 1).

With those monsters you have to take advantage of tactics (such as flanking which increases both your chance to hit and your chance to crit) and in those levels shield block is gold and saves lives.

Debuff is also appropriate.

As the DM, you can always reduce the hardness of encounters if your party is suboptimal (no role management, no skill diversification, etc). My party had a hard time with the zoo, but they pushed through without casualties.

OP is a player, not the GM, so you might want to be careful with the spoilers.

Also, I'm assuming their group built characters with a 16 in their key ability, which would give them a +6 to attack.

Oh sorry then for spoilers.

Then if starting attribute was 16 there's the problem.

Pf2e is eminently predictable, which is it's strength. The game assumes you'll be at a set amount of bonus, the average, and DC's are calculated accordingly. If you're below what's expected at this level, it'll be much harder.

Pf2e does not tolerate the suboptimal well.

Oh sorry then for spoilers.

Then if starting attribute was 16 there's the problem.

Pf2e is eminently predictable, which is it's strength. The game assumes you'll be at a set amount of bonus, the average, and DC's are calculated accordingly. If you're below what's expected at this level, it'll be much harder.

Pf2e does not tolerate the suboptimal well.

So you're saying PF2 is for combat optimizers? That's disappointing. For our group, combat is both the least important and least interesting part of the game; we're always looking for ways to simplify it and speed it up.

AlastarOG wrote:

Oh sorry then for spoilers.

Then if starting attribute was 16 there's the problem.

Pf2e is eminently predictable, which is it's strength. The game assumes you'll be at a set amount of bonus, the average, and DC's are calculated accordingly. If you're below what's expected at this level, it'll be much harder.

Pf2e does not tolerate the suboptimal well.

So you're saying PF2 is for combat optimizers? That's disappointing. For our group, combat is both the least important and least interesting part of the game; we're always looking for ways to simplify it and speed it up.

Only sort of. The tight math of PF2 strongly incentivizes maxing out AC for your level as best you can and having a maxed out attack stat. To that degree, it requires optimization more than PF1.

But that's really all you need, in a character building sense. A maxed out attack stat and as good an AC as is readily available. If you have that, all your other resources can go to character focused stuff and you'll still be just fine. There's no need to hunt through sourcebooks for the specific 'good' options or the like, I mean, those exist but you don't need them, all you need is that 18 in your attack stat and decent AC.

All that said, combat in PF2 is a harder to minimize part of the game than in, say, D&D 5E (though not harder than in PF1, IMO), because it is not designed to be easily gotten through as 5E. Tactical choices in the moment are important and powerful, and ignoring such tactics will potentially get you dead real quick.

Combat doesn't have to be your focus, but if you want to just turn your brain off and rush through combats (an entirely reasonable playstyle), PF2 is probably not the game for you, or at least not unmodified with published adventures it isn't. There are ways around this (adding a level to all the PCs and then going through the adventure at one level up at all times, for example, makes the adventure much easier), but they require either House Rules or active work on the GM's part.

I second what Deadmanwalking wrote.
Although you can optimize, you aren'trequired to do it, but no matter what, a great strength of the game is it's combat. It's far more interesting than many, many other roleplaying games, and actually makes it worthwhile fighting. But if you don't like combat and don't want to care about it in a game, you will have a much better time playing something else; too much of this game's quality and design resides in this precise aspect of the game.

...You could also look at it as I often do: you don't really need rules for roleplay, so, even if you have very few combat, it's all the better if the combat system is great and actually matters, and makes the combat interesting in it's own way. But again, if it's not boring combat that is your issue but simply fighting altogether, and engaging with combat is something you'd rather not do, PF2 isn't suited to your style, nor are official Adventure Paths (as written at least, since those are packed with fights).

AlastarOG wrote:

Oh sorry then for spoilers.

Then if starting attribute was 16 there's the problem.

Pf2e is eminently predictable, which is it's strength. The game assumes you'll be at a set amount of bonus, the average, and DC's are calculated accordingly. If you're below what's expected at this level, it'll be much harder.

Pf2e does not tolerate the suboptimal well.

So you're saying PF2 is for combat optimizers? That's disappointing. For our group, combat is both the least important and least interesting part of the game; we're always looking for ways to simplify it and speed it up.

That's why I suggest, if you want to run an adventure path, to have a DM who understands that some areas of the game can be combat heavy and on the hard side (as mentionned above, the zoo is harsh, but its not the harshest part of the AP, you haven't seen the end of chapter 2...)

If you want to run a more RP focused campaign, I strongly suggest a simple port to the FATE system, it's a cooperative storytelling system with MUCH simpler mechanics.

If you must run in pf2e, suggest to your DM that he apply the weak template to everything.

To clarify: I'm not asking for tips on how to be more effective combat monster. I'm asking why it's necessary.

If we need more sophisticated tactics to deliver greater damage and stay alive longer against much deadlier monsters in 2E, fine... but why is that the case? Why does Agents of Edgewatch suggest the exact opposite in the Player's Guide writeup? Why even bother talking about nonlethal attacks, or serving the community as peacekeepers, or negotiation and diplomacy options, if the opposition is going to be so mindlessly and relentlessly brutal?

And don't say "That's just how 2E works, it's unavoidable." CR still exists, and so does good writing. There was no reason to throw level 3 and 4 monsters at a level 1 party here, much less make them all mindless rage-monsters while removing any NPCs or possible sources of aid from the scene. This was designed as a meat grinder. It is not what it said on the tin.

PF2 can be very vicious. If you're not build for combat, you might die real quick if the DM doesn't modify it accordingly. Default PF2 is like hard mode in a video game until higher level.

I would say PF2 is close to ironman mode during the first six levels or so, and then settles at merely hard mode thereafter ;)

If you must run in pf2e, suggest to your DM that he apply the weak template to everything.

With respect, I believe the far simpler solution is to start the AP at second level, and then staying at one level higher at least until the players feel they're ready to face the content as intended.

This solution means the GM needs to do no changes at all, which is the kind of simplicity I would recommend.

There are ways around this (adding a level to all the PCs and then going through the adventure at one level up at all times, for example, makes the adventure much easier), but they require...

I see I wasn't the first to offer this excellent suggestion.

I find the way the forum software cut of Deadman right there to be actually appropriate, because this solution requires zero modifications or changes. Not by the GM. Not by the players. No houserules, no active changes, no nothing.

Just play at one level higher, and the difficulty is lowered. This is actually the easiest solution and therefore the one I recommend.

Deadmanwalking wrote:

There are ways around this (adding a level to all the PCs and then going through the adventure at one level up at all times, for example, makes the adventure much easier), but they require...

I see I wasn't the first to offer this excellent suggestion.

I find the way the forum software cut of Deadman right there to be actually appropriate, because this solution requires zero modifications or changes. Not by the GM. Not by the players. No houserules, no active changes, no nothing.

Just play at one level higher, and the difficulty is lowered. This is actually the easiest solution and therefore the one I recommend.

To be clear, I agree with most of this entirely, and the low effort is why I suggested it. I said such solutions required either work on the GM's part or a House Rule. I'd just characterize 'Start at 2nd level, gain XP as if you were one level lower' as a House Rule. :)

It's a very easy House Rule to implement, but particularly the leveling change is a real House Rule that changes how a major part of the game (XP) functions. Of course, so is benchmark leveling rather than using XP, but that doesn't mean either are not House Rules.

If you just started them at level 2, but did XP normally based on their current level, that would be much less of a House Rule, but also wouldn't achieve the desired goal very well, IMO. You'd wind up with them being ahead sometimes but not all the time and the difficulty curve would thus swing pretty widely up and down.

AlastarOG wrote:

If you must run in pf2e, suggest to your DM that he apply the weak template to everything.

With respect, I believe the far simpler solution is to start the AP at second level, and then staying at one level higher at least until the players feel they're ready to face the content as intended.

This solution means the GM needs to do no changes at all, which is the kind of simplicity I would recommend.

This works too :) Although higher levels can mean access to ressources the AP hasn't considered.

Being level 11 during the chapter 3 casino heist can undermine the entire casino heist because... teleport in... teleport out...

Sure, but also said "and then staying at one level higher at least until the players feel they're ready to face the content as intended."

So let's just assume the GM decides the players are ready to take off the training wheels sometime before level 11 :)

Zapp

PS. If I were to make a suggestion, I'd choose level 7. That is, when the heroes complete the sixth chapter (as level 7) they do not level up. Instead they take on the seventh chapter staying the same level (7).

(Level 7 is the new level 5, at least for this game. It represents a big power jump. It also means the heroes have left the earliest, most vulnerable levels. They have many more tools to handle a failed save. And it is the earliest level anyone is claiming spellcasters is starting to come into their own.)

This works too :) Although higher levels can mean access to ressources the AP hasn't considered.

Being level 11 during the chapter 3 casino heist can undermine the entire casino heist because... teleport in... teleport out...

In addition to Zapp's point that you can skip a leveling milestone and equalize things (which is well taken, and a solid option), Teleport is Uncommon. I normally am pretty free with allowing the acquisition of Uncommon spells, but it's easy to keep a specific one that would short circuit the plot out of PC hands.

Additionally, what kind of safe room casino in a magical world wouldn't have safegaurds against teleportation magic?

I haven't found Age of Ashes to carry the same savage difficulty as what I've heard about other adventures, but for a new player "entry point" it's far, far from easy mode.

It's also much more forgiving than say, RotRL...

To the teleport being uncommon point:
Yes but... it's Absalom... if there's one palce in the world where finding rare or uncommon items is possible, this is it. A simple downtime diplomacy check should suffice. Also teleport magic is fairly abundant in the campaign, being used multiple times in chapters 4 and 5 as a strategy, sometimes by members of the starwatch. Finding someone to teach it to you should not be difficult.

To the safe room being protected:
It's possible to set up rituals for protection, however it is not mentioned in the book at any point, and there is an interlocutor velstrac when they get in the safe that's waiting there to chat to people. She has the dimension door spell and nothing else, how do you suggest she got in, if not by teleportation?

I'd just feel like a chump if I told my players: nan you can't teleport in but... she can?

In 1e, there's ways to ward off some but not all teleportation. Or just ward everything except one very specific spot with a teleport trap or similiar?