Balkoth's page

The Balor taunted them ahead of the fight (first time they faced a Balor) that even if they managed to strike him down, he'd take them all with him by exploding, more or less.

The goal was to have the party not be completely blindsided and play with that explosion in mind.

But "knock him unconscious with 1-2 non-lethal attacks which lasts 10+ minutes and then run away and shoot up from extreme distance" didn't cross my mind.

Like Obi-wan Kenobi going "If you strike me down I'll become more powerful than you can possibly imagine" and then Darth Vader says "Okay," knocks him unconscious, and imprisons him in the Death Star.

I don't think they knew the exact distance either, they just ran to the extreme opposite corner of the cavern they were in just to be safe.

Just felt weird that a signature "on death" effect can be bypassed with 1-2 non-lethal hits at low HP.

Specifically they hit it with a few non-lethal blows (at -2) when the Balor was at low HP to knock him out.

Then they ran 150 feet away and had the ranger shoot him for the lethal shot and the explosion they now outranged.

Humbug.

Gotcha, appreciate the clarification everyone!

And I understand that the amount of fire damage the plane of fire deals is on average more than what runes would mitigate (although I honestly can't find where it spells out how much fire damage the plane should deal each round).

Rules on fire planes: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=3014

"Fire: Planes with this trait are composed of flames that continually burn with no fuel source. Fire planes are extremely hostile to non-fire creatures. Unprotected wood, paper, cloth, and other flammable materials catch fire almost immediately, and creatures wearing unprotected flammable clothing catch fire, typically taking 1d6 persistent fire damage. Extraplanar creatures take moderate environmental fire damage at the end of each round (sometimes minor environmental damage in safer areas, or major or massive damage in even more fiery areas). Ice creatures are extremely uncomfortable on a fire plane, assuming they don't outright melt in the heat."

Definition of environmental damage and temperatures: https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2768

Minor: 1d6-2d6
Moderate: 4d6-6d6
Major: 8d6-12d6
Massive: 16d6-24d6

(See url for better formatting)

Category Temperature Fatigue Damage
Incredible cold (-80º F or colder): 2 hours Moderate cold every minute
Extreme cold -79º F to -20º F 4 hours Minor cold every 10 minutes
Severe cold -21º F to 12º F 4 hours Minor cold every hour
Mild cold 13º F to 32º F 4 hours None
Normal 33º F to 94º F 8 hours None
Mild heat 95º F* to 104º F* 4 hours None
Severe heat 105º F* to 114º F 4 hours Minor fire every hour
Extreme heat 115º F to 139º F 4 hours Minor fire every 10 minutes
Incredible heat 140º F or warmer 2 hours Moderate fire every minute

As you can see, moderate fire damage every round is at least a category of heat higher than incredible, literally off the chart.

The bad news: the DM isn't thrilled with the idea of Greater Oil of Weightlessness or a Dawnsilver Bastard Sword due to physics.

The good news: I didn't escape, despite trying repeatedly. The rogue who got swallowed round 2 never managed to escape. The cleric who got swallowed round 3 never managed to escape. The druid got the Worm to crit fail on a Cone of Cold and that was able to finish it off so everyone lived.

Upon talking to one of the other players more, the biggest sticking point seems to be the idea that 4 enemies arranged horizontally can block movement through but those 4 enemies arranged diagonally cannot.

This means rather than moving 5 feet to the southeast either as a Step or Stride, they're arguing you need to tumble through the square of either the enemy to the east or to the south (and provoking reactions from entering/leaving those squares) and then continuing to the southeast corner, costing 10 feet of movement (two squares) plus another 5 feet of movement for the difficult terrain of tumbling through for a total of 15 feet.

Well M2 could spend two actions on repositioning, so given points 1 and 2, yes.

The issue was that the Boss would be occupying a minion square after the first reposition and thus that wouldn't be a valid Reposition, I think the GM was referencing this rule:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=2560

That is very interesting. Thanks!

And I dont think that either encounter mentioned are neccesarily overtuned but both absolutely are severe-threat and Extreme-threat bosses against level 1 party.

I mean, by definition that means they're overtuned :)

The drake is considered a moderate encounter (+2) at level 3.

If it's severe or extreme threat it should be level 4 or 5.

I am not sure if you had any measure of defence against reactions, Forbidding Ward, Protection, Raise shield and so on.

That all sounds like stuff the warpriest would have access to and no one else.

Did you clear the top floor? Should maybe level two by the time you fight the drake.

We're on the entry floor with the Mitflits and scorpion. We have not gone down a level. We found this stuff on the western side of the ruins, close to the kobold haunt.

Those were all rough fights, swash felt terrible for many fights. I didn't enjoy the adventure as I felt very ineffective tickling with a d4 weapon and missing a lot.

Yeah, the Swashbuckler is hitting for 1d6+4 but only a buckler...feels a rogue would be hitting as hard with sneak attack bonus and a fighter would be hitting either way harder or at least slightly harder with a better shield.

Is Swashbuckler just not good?

Your group doesn't look like they have much reliable damage, rogue and swash aren't great for damage especially in AV.

Yes, I originally suggested I play a 2H fighter with a halberd or greatsword to act as a fulcrum but they wanted an arcane caster.

When we ran AV, my players similarly identified what was nesting down there and decided they weren't yet prepared for that fight.

There was no "down there?" We were told the milestone leveling indicated we basically needed to clear the whole first floor including the drake to hit level 2.

Again, I think if we had to stuck our initial plan we could have prevailed, but it was way harder than the scorpion or things like the two Giant Flies.

As this thread shows most people are convinced that this is how the rule works, even if they personally would run it differently.

I got the opposite impression from that thread, especially things like this post:

https://paizo.com/threads/rzs4vf0v&page=2?Problems-with-Tap-Into-Blood# 67

So what? Rebuilding a character from scratch, because it doesn't work with your group's demands, is perfectly fine. If they force you to play a character you're no longer comfortable with, then you have some serious problems to address at your table.

If he dies, he dies, and I'll make something else. But for now I'm working with what I've got and trying to figure out ways to survive.

In particular, I wouldn't wait until level 7-8 to get your armor class right. You're going to have a bad time until then.

I agree. I think I'm going to pick up Sentinel at level 2 (free archetype) and Heavy Armor Proficiency at level 3. The campaign will end at level 12 so lacking Expert at level 13+ isn't a huge deal. I can use Fleet and Tailwind to make up for the speed penalties. I'll have Bulwark for Reflex saves and can improve that to +4 with the level 10 Sentinel thing.

Work with the party so that they use tactics that make the enemy go after them instead of you. Stay back. Have them get between you and the opponents. Ensure you have some 60' range attacks not just 30'. (Have someone) throw down difficult terrain when they can. Etc.

If your group runs more towards dungeon crawl run-and-gun or you're playing an AP like that, then you are probably better off going with what many other posters have suggested: a build that does the OOC stuff tolerably well but not excellent, but doesn't sacrifice AC or HP.

I'm definitely planning on avoiding attracting as much attention as possibly, using things like Invisibility too.

It is Abomination Vaults which sounds like a fairly big dungeon crawl but the DM claimed investigation and diplomacy would both be important.

You can get by without a lot of hp (False Life lasts 8 hours, 12gp on a scroll). You can't get by without AC in AV.

That sounds like a fascinating idea I will definitely be looking into.

You say that you have played the character as a sorcerer once already. I would like to hear your report on that.

It was one session where we fought some small creatures throwing darts and then an animal and dealt with environmental stuff. Several people learning the VTT for the first time so slower going. Ended with going into another combat. Being vague to avoid any (minor) spoilers. So not much to go on yet.

This thread had drifted way off topic long before you posted, so I certainly don't mind.

I'm the original poster and I've gotten all the info I needed for the original topic, so I also don't mind :)

Telling me to build a fighter does not let me build a wrath of god champion.

Perhaps you could clarify what you mean by "wrath of god."

You can easily build a Champion with equal accuracy to everyone but a fighter, who uses a big 2H weapon for massive damage, smacks any enemy who dares attack weaker allies, smites enemies (especially unholy enemies) for bonus damage, takes Reactive Strikes when given the chance, has Blessed Counterstrike, etc.

Interesting, I can't play Skyrim without turning into a stealth archer.

Start as a mage, by the end I'm a stealth archer.
Start as a 2 handed weapon user, stealth archer.

Doesn't matter what I do. I end up a stealth archer.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NQLJ6Yp_C0

I mean, that is, for me, an absolute reason why I now think 2E is superior to 1E. I've been GM'ing 3.5/1E for about 20 years at this point and have reached the end of my rope dealing with overbuffed parties and players still discovering hidden buffs which stack in some dark corner of the 1E splatbooks even now.

Even without allowing splatbooks I had a level 12 party where a monk did 700 damage to a single target in one round, a vivisectionist who had 3 attacks at full AB and 6 more at -2 AB (all with Sneak Attack), and an Inquisitor who had 38 AB (for comparison, CR 12 creatures were "expected" to have 27 AC).

I believe that was just Core Rulebook, Advanced Player's Guide, and Advanced Class Guide.

And trying to adapt to that group caused a TPK for another campaign who weren't doing things like pre-buffing (minutes per level buffs or longer, just to be clear) even when warned about incoming threats.

Now a better group may get through the content more easily but one group isn't six times as strong as the other or something.

PF1 was never intended to be the cakewalk that optimized players turned it into. What you see in PF2 is a system that you (as a player) pretty much can't do that at all, but the GM can adjust if that's the story they want to tell.

Yeah, in PF1 I was literally rebuilding the monster creation table in order to challenge players at the proper level (and just using higher level monsters for very optimized groups created problems with abilities that got bonus effects for lower level characters).

PF2 has made designing stuff far easier, and I can run a level of difficulty appropriate to the group I'm DMing for.

It's probably better to think of grapple as you got your hand on their should, or grabbed their wrist, or something similar.

He gets that. I think he just expected to be able to try to do something more without necessarily restraining/pinning the person. Like spending all 3 actions to increase the spell failure chance or increase the AC penalty or something.

Although, an enemy that is +2 levels above the party is usually a pretty big threat all by themselves (though I recognize that this is an unusual case).

Not when you hit for 1d8 damage with 8 AB, not exactly a big threat :)

+7 modifier vs DC 17? That doesn't seem too bad to me.

Someone specifically said "The monk shouldn't need to roll a 20 to critically succeed" and I showed math that the monk would indeed need to roll a 20. That was my whole point.

In the scenario you describe, though, the summoner was acting more like a complex hazard than a conventional npc, and I might run them as such, actually.

This is entirely true. It was basically a combat puzzle of hitting the right undead with the right weapons/spells (that they had faced previously) and prioritizing their targets.

Like if the necromancer buffs a specific skeleton, the party should kill that one first so the buff is essentially wasted.

What? What did he expect? He narratively basically strongly grasped an enemy's clothes or a limb.

He expected that three PCs with Str 16+ standing next to a physically weak caster could do more than hold him in place with a 20% spell failure chance and -2 AC penalty. Without actually attacking the caster with normal Strikes, to be clear, which is where I think his hope and the PF2 system diverge.

Staying within combat rules was no longer the right scene to use to navigate those expectations.

That is an interesting point I will carefully consider and bring up to him.

There is actually some guidance for running VP systems within a combat encounter (it’s a lot like complex trap in a combat) that could be fun to think about for the future. Especially if you are willing to create such complex creatures in the first place.

Do you know where that is by any chance?

Level matters a whole lot more than in PF1. A level 3 caster getting shut down completely by a level 1 grapple should be rare.

He didn't expect to shut down a higher level enemy with one success using one action.

He was hoping to be able to more than "Grapple once per round and then hit the caster" in terms less hitting and more grappling.

It causes immobilized and off-guard. Off-guard reduces the enemies AC by 2 (which consequently means that they get easier to crit).

He felt the off-guard was wasted due to the flanking going on.

The monk should have used 1 action to grapple, 1 to flurry of blows, and something else each turn.

I know what's optimal. At this point he knows what's optimal. He just doesn't like "needing" to use Flurry of Blows rather than increasing the grapple somehow. He doesn't like hitting things. He'd jaded and a bit different in that regard. And he's used to looser rules system and PF1.

Your Wizard has a Fort. DC of 17, and your Monk has a +6 Athletics, so the Monk will at least succeed at a grapple check 50% of the time, and imposes a 20% chance of spell failure, again, at the cost of 1 action by the Monk.

This just doesn’t seem like reasonable expectations.

He didn't expect to do more with one action.

He expected to be able to spend more actions and make some "progress" of some kind rather than each round being a 50/50 coin toss whether the grapple continues. And he expected the Champions to be able to help in some way more than a +1 or +2 Aid bonus.

Sounds like what they wanted was a narrative victory, not a crunch enabled one.

Or at least not a "beat the caster down with Strikes" victory, yeah.

Well, they could have if the GM told them right away what exactly Grapple in PF2 means. But the GM is also new in PF2 as I understand and so probably didn't fully realize this themselves.

I told them what Grapple did as soon as they asked about it.

I've also been running a PF2 game for four years that's at level 16.

This new group just has some very jaded players who are different.

"But then to be completely frank there is zero reason ever to invest in an interesting character with any kind of meaningful story as opposed to a mathematically perfect robot that just metaphorically mashes buttons on its turn to maximize damage."

"People won't invest in characters that are almost dead semi-frequently. That's their connections to the fluff."

"I just want to point out the philosophy of setting clear priorities in your design between story, character, and mechanics. It feels like you want story to matter, so make it matter more than the mechanics."

Your players will get it if they explore the system further.

They'll get it. I'm not sure this group will like it.

More than anything I think this is a misalignment of expectations coming from PF1 and expecting the same tactics to work.

It sounds like 3 martials were all trying to grab the caster instead of kill it? That is just bad tactics in PF2.

Yeah, if that's the case, then the scenario makes more sense to me. Once the monk had the grapple, everyone else should have been piling on the damage instead of attempting to apply a non-stacking condition. The monk should have got a few hits in too.

I think basically the monk was hoping he and the champions could subdue the boss caster without actually hitting the boss caster and bringing them to 0 HP. Not necessarily in one round or anything, but I think the monk player finds hitting stuff boring. He basically wanted to basically work with the champions to say "Okay, we've grappled/pinned/tied up the boss and ended the fight" rather than inflicting (non-lethal) HP damage.

Again, he didn't expect to win round 1 or something, but once he grappled the boss and I told him "Okay, the boss is now immobilized, off-guard, and has a 20% chance to fail spells" he was like "Wait, that's it? And I can't do anything more unless I crit succeed? And I have do this every round? And the champions can't help me subdue this guy beyond a +1/+2 bonus with Aid? This doesn't make narrative sense."

Also it sounds like a 5 person party going up against a solo boss caster? I am betting either an elite template was applied or we were looking at a level +3 or 4 NPC? The players are lucky they didn't die/the caster was wasting time casting summoning spells while grabbed instead of just frying them.

It was a special fight where the caster literally had nothing but the ability to summon creatures and buff them. And got weakened as his summons were killed.

It's effectively a reflavored version of the monsters being there from round one and then reinforcements arrive (to avoid the fight being too tough by all the enemies being active round 1).

But the monk was basically annoyed from round 1 at the perceived ineffectiveness of grapple.

There is almost no reason a Monk with an 18 str should be looking at a crit chance of 5% with grapple against a caster unless the level disparity is vast, or the caster was a brute creature with a casting template applied to it, even at level 1.

He had 16 str (but 18 dex). That said, a level 3 wizard would have 3 (level) + 2 (trained) + 2 (con) = 7 fortitude, and a level 1 monk with 18 str has 7 athletics (1 level + 2 trained + 4 str) so you'd still need a nat 20.

I hope you guys adapt to the new paradigm that is 2e. It really is a great system once you get a hold of the ropes.

Oh I'm running another campaign that is level 16, I'm enjoying the system. But some of this group is just...different. They're a bit jaded after playing TTRPGs for so long and get bored with what they view as basic stuff, I think. The ranger, for example, wanted to take the alchemist dedication and focus on supporting the party:

"My thought was that <name> is more of pest control guy. Sometimes he doesn't outright kill his prey, but outsmarts them. I was thinking with his traps and such.

I want this character to be using poisons and debuffs and not exactly be pouring damage into the enemies."

He didn't want to play an Alchemist, though, due to the complexity (which I understand). But I broke it to him that he'd still be like 70% shooting stuff with his bow even with the alchemist dedication.

They've played a lot of different systems and we just finished a Dungeon World campaign. They said they were interested in trying a system with a lot more crunch (they've played PF1 in the past). But I'm uncertain if PF2 is the right system for them.

I just started running a PF2 campaign with some people who are veterans to TTRPGs but new to PF2 (so level 1 characters, monk/ranger/champion/champion/sorcerer).

They had a combat vs a summoner style boss whose shtick was summoning creatures, with the idea being the party needed to kill the minions and render the caster not much of a threat.

The party monk wanted to try to grapple the caster to interfere with his summons (and casting in general) and was really disappointed that the result was only making the boss flat-footed, unable to move, and have a 20% chance to lose a spell (which incidentally never even happened in the 5ish spells the boss cast while grappled). Obviously if the monk crit succeeded he'd restrain the caster for one round hence the "5% lucky roll" comment below.

"If you have a clothie caster surrounded by 3 beefy dudes all grabbing him, it feels unreasonable to say 'oh well rules say you can't do anything further but mildly inconvenience him. Under no circumstances can you do more than grab his shoulders or waist no matter how big, strong, or trained you are - unless of course if you get your 5% lucky roll.'"

I remember Pathfinder 1 characters able to grapple and tie up basically anything in one round and I know this player doesn't want to go that far (and PF2 doesn't want that result), but he's feeling like grapple is unimpactful and that his supporting monk character concept doesn't feel very good as a result.

Any thoughts on this topic?

The remastered feat in question:

"You transform into a ferocious Large dragon, gaining the effects of 6th-rank dragon form except that you use your own AC and attack modifier, you apply your extra damage from Rage, and the Dragon Breath action uses your class DC. Add the temporary Hit Points from dragon form to any you already have from entering a rage (or any other action with the rage trait). The action to Dismiss the transformation gains the rage trait.

At 18th level, you gain a +20-foot status bonus to your fly Speed, your damage bonus with dragon Strikes increases to +12, and you gain a +14 status bonus to your Dragon Breath damage."

Legacy feat:

https://2e.aonprd.com/Feats.aspx?ID=172

The main difference seems to be the 10 minute cooldown on the remastered version.

So the Dragon Instinct Barbarian just hit level 16 and gets to turn into a dragon at times. That's cool. He can fly and has a better breath weapon. But he's feeling rather underwhelmed by it, mainly in terms of attack and damage.

He has 5 strength modifier and a +3 greater striking weapon with holy and flaming runes.

This means he has 16 (level) + 6 (master) + 5 (strength) + 3 (item) = 30 attack.

He's using a 2H reach weapon for 3d10 damage plus 1d4 spirit (holy rune) + 1d6 fire + 5 (strength) + 6 (greater weapon specialization), or 33.5 prior to rage damage (which applies to the dragon form too so I'm ignoring it).

So 30 attack, 33.5 damage with reach.

As a dragon, he gets 16 (level) + 6 (master) + 5 (strength) = 27 attack, which is already a very significant drop.

His jaws do 2d12 damage + 2d6 energy + 6 (polymorph bonus), or 26 damage. It might be 32 damage if Great Weapon Specialization counts.

So he's losing 3 AB, 1.5-7.5 damage, reach and the additional bonuses of the holy and flaming runes.

He could use his tail for reach at the cost of losing 5-11 damage (and the additional bonuses of the holy and flaming runes).

But it seems like a significant combat nerf for the ability to fly and an improved breath attack.

Are we missing anything here?

I think in theory he could invest in handwraps maybe for better unarmed AB but that's another big investment when he's already put a lot of money into a +3 cold iron weapon (fighting a lot of demons). Seems odd for a dragon instinct barbarian to suddenly have to do at level 16.

It's all about HOW you use it that determines if you're being evil. (Poison, of course, lends itself very well to evil acts, of course...)

I suspect part of it is natural attacks vs applied to weapons vs applied to food, for example.

A good aligned snake with a poisonous bite is just doing its thing.

A heroic archer who poisons his arrows and slays the evil dragon in an epic battle running up and down a mountain could be a thing.

But you generally never hear "heroic" tales of Bob the Poisoner who slipped into the bandit camp and a few hours later the nearby town was safe as all of the sadistic bandits died after eating poisoned food.

It seems like most places on the Plane of Fire deal 4d6 fire damage each round outside of a safer haven like the City of Brass.

The best fire resist spells and gear seem to only have 15 fire resist and 4d6 each round would obviously wear a PC down within like 10 minutes in most cases (average is 14 but you'd have rolls above the 15 resist mark at a reasonable rate).

People keep mentioning coercion but it literally says:

"The target gives you the information you seek or agrees to follow your directives so long as they aren't likely to harm the target in any way."

So that doesn't appear like you can force a suspect to confess.

Also, it doesn't say the target tells the truth. If you try to demand that person A admits that person B was at X location, then if you intimidate A they'll give you the information you seek...even if it's a lie. Because they're scared of you and will agree with your incorrect conclusion to protect themselves.

You are in no position to judge them for whatever crime they have committed.

Just to clarify, if you're traveling and some Fire Giants attack you to take you as slaves, one surrenders when the others are dead, and you discover they're holding slaves in their nearby outpost who can testify to the cruelty of the Fire Giants...your position is that your adventuring group has no right to judge the surviving Fire Giant?

But taking prisoners and then realizing that it's an inconvenience and just ditch their corpse in a hole, that's not a good thing to do.

I generally agree, but I'm thinking circumstances matter. In the heat of the moment they may have felt bad about killing the giant trying to surrender and/or been uncertain about what to do.

And I think the point is that it would be less about inconvenience and more what the morally correct thing to do is -- Sarenrae is all about redemption if possible but then excising the evil if not so one could make the argument that if the prisoner has no desire to change their ways Sarenrae would want the evil destroyed. They had their chance, basically.

But I'm not convinced Sarenrae's "Don't fail to strike down evil" bit applies to executing evil but unrepentant prisoners if the party feels bad about executing an surrendered foe.

Speaking of the edicts of goodness, a typical Sarenite has no duty to accept a surrender, but a divine adherent of Shelyn does

Shelyn follower: "We have to accept their surrender"

Note I don't actually think the above is correct, in part because Shelyn and Sarenrae (and Desna) are, ahem, close allies. The whole situation just got me thinking about the "Fail to strike down evil" bit after a player was asking for guidance.

Even so, I find the point compelling that if you are indeed actually a whole 3 weeks away from any manner of civilization or other authority, the amount of trouble a lone weaponless, and badly injured person could be expected to inflict is limited. If there were innocents out here to harm, you wouldnt be in this dilemma. Inform the individual that if you catch their unrepentant self causing trouble again in these parts, you'll finish what you started, by your goddess' will.

In this case it's a fire giant kingdom and the party is on the outskirts...so there's civilization nearby, just a hostile fire giant civilization. And if the surviving giant tells his superiors about the PCs it could theoretically lead to problems...and there are definitely innocent slaves around the fire giants are harming.

So the individual will almost certainly be causing trouble in those parts (aka the fire giant kingdom). But the party isn't in a position to try to destroy the entire kingdom...not yet, anyway, that'll be an option at higher levels though depending on their priorities...

PS I've been looking for a citation on the notion that deity anathema go in order of severity, bit while this is unambiguously true for the tiers of the Champion Code, I haven't found anything yet about anathema having any meaning ascribed to the order listed.

Same here.

Besides fundamental weapon/armor runes, what are some items people have found useful at lower levels?

From 1-19 the system stays relevant and it never just becomes an exercise in instantly defeating the enemies like PF1 begins to slip into at level 9.

Level 9 is exactly when things started to utterly break for me as well.

Wound up having to rewrite the entire monster creation table where AC scaled to 12 at level 1 to 59 at level 20, for example. Just to keep enemy AC relevant.

I think there's still some confusion here.

In my opinion, an on level enemy shouldn't be that much of a challenge. Else, a party fighting against an equal number or equal CR enemies should kill the party half the time.

Fighting an equal number of equal CR/level enemies SHOULD kill the party half the time. That is correct.

That's like 4 level 10 Barbarians fighting 4 level 10 Barbarians. You would expect that to be a 50/50 matchup.

So CR+2 encounters should be virtually impossible in that case.

CR+2 (or more accurately APL+2) encounters is the equivalent of 2 level 10 Barbarians against 4 level 10 Barbarians. So not remotely virtually impossible -- in fact, one side is twice as strong as the other!

In Pathfinder 2 terms, a CR+2 encounter would be considered a "moderate" encounter.

A CR+4 (or equal fight) is an "extreme" encounter.

I get the feeling that what's bothering you is you think you should be able to easily handle an equivalent level enemy solo.

In that case, I suggest doing the following (and this is not a joke):

Add 4 to the level of all enemies (whether bestiary creatures or NPCs) but do not change their stats. Then multiply the encounter building XP rules by 4 (so extreme is now 640 XP, for example). Then change the XP per level to 4000.

You'll get the results you want. Examples include:

1, for a level 20 party, four level 24 Balors is an extreme encounter.

2, for a level 20 party, three level 21 Mariliths is an trivial encounter.

3, for a level 14 party, eight level 14 Fire Giants is a moderate encounter.

Etc.

Level 10 enemies are not CR 10 enemies from PF1. Moderate encounters in PF2 are not Average encounters from PF1. An NPC with character classes in PF1 was level+1, and level+2 if they had gear equivalent to a player (i.e. their magic weapons are up to date - which is true of all enemies now). So that fully equipped 10th level wizard that was a CR 12 enemy from PF1 is now a level 10 enemy in PF2.

Wanted to correct some misinformation here (all quotes from here).

Fighting a clone of yourself (or another PC of your level) was fighting an identical CR enemy. A level 10 fighter vs a level 10 ranger is a CR 10 vs CR 10...and incidentally a CR+4 encounter (beyond epic). To understand why, imagine 4 level 10 fighters vs 4 level 10 rangers...APL 10 vs a CR14 encounter. Same principle applies if it's 1v1.

In Pathfinder 1, an NPC was considered level - 1 for CR:

"A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1."

So a level 10 fighter with NPC gear is CR 9 and vs a level 10 ranger with PC gear is now "only" APL+3 ("epic" fight).

But if you give that fighter PC wealth he's back to being a CR10 foe:

"a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR."

Which leads us to...

An on level enemy isn't supposed to be challenging.

Yes, it is. It's literally equal to you in power. It's like fighting your clone. It's supposed to a 50/50 shot of winning in a vacuum in a 1v1 fight.

It's not challenging for an ENTIRE party but that's a different matter.

Ultimately this is my chief complain with PF2, I always feel like a weakling. If I'm putting everything into something, I should be suplexing the enemy into a sleeper hold almost every turn.

If your four person party fought three evil clones of you (level+3 encounter) and you're at the bottom of initiative (bad roll), do you think each of your clones should be able to suplex another PC into a sleeper hold before you act?

Only rules I can find on this matter say:

"Accidentally Ending Movement in an Illegal Space

Sometimes a character ends its movement while moving through a space where it’s not allowed to stop. When that happens, put your miniature in the last legal position you occupied, or the closest legal position, if there’s a legal position that’s closer."

So say our roguish hero (who has 30 feet of movement and this is his SECOND move action) tries to tumble through a mass of hobgoblins to the square he thinks is empty (fortunately his acrobatics skill is crazy high so he can move at full speed) but instead contains an invisible hobgoblin alchemist?

Image of the situation.

He used 25 feet of movement to get there but can't stop there. Does he...

A, get shunted back 25 feet (50 feet of movement for his second move action)?

B, get shunted forward 15 feet (40 feet of movement for his second move action) and gets to freely move through more enemies he might not have been able to tumble past?

C, something else?

Both A and B seem really weird.

I've given numbers to the nearest 25%.

100% = Uninjured
75%-99% = Barely Wounded
50%-74% = Moderately Wounded
25%-49% = Heavily Wounded
01%-24% = Critically Wounded
0% = Disabled

I think you know the rest from there.

I set up a house rule where creatures can attempt a new save at a -2 penalty as a full round action (basically a worse version of the Hold Person save), but only for 3 rounds. If they're asleep/feared/etc then they automatically get a new save at the end of each turn. If they're dominated/charmed they only get a new save after being attacked (plus the usual against your nature saves).

Seems to generally be better -- mooks getting CCed are very unlikely to make the new save while at a penalty, PCs have better chances to break free within a few rounds if the combat isn't over by then.

Does lead to a few odd cases, I'll admit, still trying to figure out how to handle those appropriately.

I'm running a long term campaign. How do you handle these spells (including their cost and their power)?

I'd rather not have players running around with 12 angels/devils/demons in tow expecting the money spent back at the next level (since presumably it's similar to consumables where it doesn't count against your overall WBL over the long term, at least).

Flagged the above post as abusive. Angry Adventurer, I'd be willing to sit down with your group on Discord (or Mumble or Teamspeak) and walk you through this if you'd like. And answer any questions you have as we go.

Uuuuuuuh... Rysky's right though.

Here you are clearly off base. A Barbarian DOES get their own rage bonuses without spending rounds of rage while benefiting from inspired rage;

Let's not talk past each other.

At levels 1-7, 11-15, and 20 a Barbarian or Bloodrager can gain +2 Str/+2 Con/-1 AC (and some Will in there) by accepting the Skald's rage but using the Barbarian's or Bloodrager's bonuses. However, this means the Barbarian loses every Rage Power and the Bloodrager loses their Bloodline powers AND their spellcasting. That's not worth the 2 Str/2 Con unless Rage is being deliberately rationed (or you're super low level, I suppose).

So in a big battle where everyone is going all out and people are novaing, a Barbarian or Bloodrager is not going to get any benefit from the Skald's raging song.

However, even in that case the Barbarian still isn't losing anything... they have just as much access to their own rage powers as before... plus some number of additional rounds of rage (w/o fatigue) from the Skald with Skald rage powers.

But the Bard would be giving them the Inspire Courage bonus WHILE the Barbarian is raging. That's the whole problem. The bard can raise the Barbarian to greater heights than a Skald. Which doesn't seem to make any conceptual sense.

I am very skeptical that in 2018, even 2016 or so, that there are new people picking up Pathfinder. Old veterans have found a personal solution to the problem ages ago. For some it is merely acceptance.

I started 1.5-2 years ago when a friend asked me to play in a game of his despite never having playing a table-top game before.

For example, level 1 is your average joe shmoe, level 6 is a veteran general of many wars, level 10 is a hero out of myth, and 20 is a demi-god.

Does that sound about right? Anyone got any more examples?

Paizo thinks a general is a level 11 Fighter.

A Pirate King is level 15.

Cavalry in armies are level 6.

Here's the link to the main list if you want to peruse it.

Given other dragon examples, I don't see why the nightmare one being a CR 10 is overpowered.

Compared to the two other CR10 dragons you linked to, the Adult Nightmare Dragon has...

- 75%ish more HP
- 4 more AC
- 4 more Fort/Will
- SR21
- 50% faster move speed
- 6 more AB
- 4 more damage per hit
- Breath weapon that deals 50% more damage with 5 higher DC
- Better spells/spell like abilities

And you think the Adult Nightmare Dragon needs the advanced template on top of that to be a CR10? Perhaps you could explain your reasoning on this.

Relevant Adventure Path? It's a standard creature from Bestiary 5. It's not specific to any Adventure path.

I mentioned where I encountered one to give some context, but that has nothing to do with whether it's the stats of a CR12-13 creature that's listed as CR10.

Its frustrating when not just one of those scenes but an entire 3 hour game session evaporates into a blood-mist with just average rolls.

Clarify? I assume you mean "it dies too fast" rather than "it dies" because the PCs ARE supposed to win with average rolls. Add more monsters, add the advanced template, use tougher encounters, etc.

And as others said, the rules assumed 15 point buy, standard WBL, 4 person party.

Remember, for 5th level PCs, the (rough) guidelines are:

• CR 9 Opponents should probably kill them more often than not

A CR9 encounter is like facing their clones. Four level 5 PCs vs four level 5 PCs is a CR9 encounter for both. So when you think CR+4, think "as powerful as the group combined, roughly even chance for either side to win."

if the most basics of putting a functional character together is deemed to op for a gm maybe they shouldn't be gming it would be like saying your wizard has to have 14 in str minimum and cant have more then 12 int, or that martials aren't allowed to take power attack or weapon focus which is just silly

I never thought I'd be agreeing with Lady-J or liking a post of hers but life moves in mysterious ways I guess...

If the party is fighting a CR 5 monster, it should be equal to a level 6 character.

That isn't quite correct. A PC with normal WBL for a PC has CR equal to its level. So if you took a party of four level 5 Barbarians and had them fight another level 5 Barbarian (and all had the same gear/build), that's a CR 5 encounter for an APL 5 party. Alterive, the enemy could be a level 6 Barbarian with NPC wealth and that would also be a CR 5 encounter.

Which is why CR = APL encounters are so easy...it's effectively 4 on 1 odds. Or the same as fighting 4 enemies that are 4 levels lower each (so 4 level 1 Barbarians also equate to a CR 5 encounter...they're going to get stomped by 4 level 5s).

Nope.

"Protection From Evil: Does this work against all charm and compulsion effects? Or just against charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as charm person, command, and dominate person (and thus not effects like sleep or confusion, as the caster does not have ongoing influence or puppet-like control of the target)?

The latter interpretation is correct: protection from evil only works on charm and compulsion effects where the caster is able to exercise control over the target, such as command, charm person, and dominate person; it doesn't work on sleep or confusion. (Sleep is a border case for this issue, but the designers feel that "this spell overrides your brain's sleep centers" is different enough than "this spell overrides your resistance to commands from others.")"

However, what is stopping devils from forcing everyone to sign away their souls under duress? Probably the other deities, who don't want their followers stolen away.

Erastil: Hey, have I ever told you about Farmer Bob?

Iomedae: No, who is he?

Erastil: He's a mid-fifties human male, raised a family, staple of the community, all around great guy. Never put a foot wrong his whole life.

Iomedae: Sounds like an ideal follower of yours, I take it something happened to him?

Erastil: Yeah, he got tortured and murdered by devil worshipers. But at least he'll join me in my sacred realm and -- hang on, breaking news. Apparently he was tortured to the point he signed an infernal contract and is now damned to Hell for eternity. Oh well!

Iomedae: Sucks to be him, I suppose. Moving on to another topic...

People forget that this is an infernal contract, created by a devil, which means all of these fancy real life rules regarding nullification via duress (which is enforced by the government) do not apply.

It does still say

"To receive any of these bonuses, however, the mortal must sign its true name to the document of its own free will."

which is what I think the issue is about -- at what point is free will violated? Clearly being dominated and signing a contract wouldn't be valid.

If your CN is refusing to do something because they don't want to harm good people... That isn't CN. That is CG. The character is choosing, actively, good over evil and avoiding actions that are evil. That is the definition of Chaotic Good.

Wrong.

"People who are neutral with respect to good and evil have compunctions against killing the innocent, but may lack the commitment to make sacrifices to protect or help others."

That's Chaotic Neutral -- they won't want to kill innocents, but they won't go out of their way to help others.

that math would only work if your expecting the fight to be cr 0.6666666 a 50% dificulty increase on a cr 10 fight is cr 15 while half that would be cr5 ie 6 and 2 players in the party respectivly

That's not even English. Look, this really isn't complicated:

4 Creatures CR +4
6 Creatures CR +5
8 Creatures CR +6

Going from 4 to 6 enemies is a +50% difficulty increase, but only increases the CR by 1.

Going from 4 to 8 enemies is a +100% difficulty increase, but only increases the CR by 2.

Straight from the gamemastering guide.

This also works with a smaller amount of creatures.

2 Creatures CR +2
3 Creatures CR +3
4 Creatures CR +4

Going from 2 to 3 enemies is a +50% difficulty increase, but only increases the CR by 1.

Going from 2 to 4 enemies is a +100% difficulty increase, but only increases the CR by 2.

i just find that LG is far to restrictive to play and also has a tendency to ruin other players fun just as much as a player playing chaotic evil

Let's hear some actual examples, because that hasn't been my experience.

I played a LG Fighter in my first campaign ever. Played a LG cleric in my second campaign.

In a campaign I'm running on Monday night, I had a paladin in the group. Then there was a TPK. After reconvening the party, there are now TWO paladins in the group. In the second campaign I'm running on Wednesday night, there's also a paladin.

I just don't get this "LG is ruining our games!" What kind of games are you playing? I mean, sure, if you're playing "ARRR we're evil pirates plundering and murdering everything" then LG ain't going to work too well, but that's true for any good alignment.

Generally speaking, characters should not consistently exceed the blue numbers. If they are, it's usually appropriate to get them to tone it down a little

Eh...

At level 15, the blue AB value is 28. A level 15 Fighter has 15 BAB, 3 from Weapon Training, 2 from (Greater) Weapon Focus, and 4 from Strength (assuming Strength of 16 at level 1) with no items. That's already 24. Throw in a +3 weapon and a +4 Strength belt and you're already at 29. This isn't a particularly well built/geared level 15 Fighter either...and Fighters are not exactly breaking the game at high levels even in the best case scenario.

How about AC? Blue is 38. Base of 10 + 9 (full plate) + 3 (Dex modifier, could be higher but we're being pessimistic) + 2 (heavy shield) + 5 (armor bonus) + 5 (shield bonus) + 3 (ring of protection) + 3 (amulet of natural armor) = 40 AC. This isn't even getting a +4 ring/amulet, Dodge/Shield Focus, better Dex, etc.

I find it hard to believe that this Fighter needs to be told to tone it down >.>

Nope. If you totally clone your player characters than it would be at least APL+5 encounter, because PC Wealth is CR+1 modifier, and PC-level abillity array is also at least CR+1 modifier.

The interesting thing is that your reasoning here is completely correct -- but you have a flawed premise that results in an incorrect conclusion. Per the Gamemastering Rules...

Let's start with a level 10 Warrior. He has NPC class levels with NPC ability scores along with NPC wealth. He's CR 8:

"A creature that only possesses non-player class levels (such as a warrior or adept) is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –2."

But let's say we give him PC classes and ability scores -- he's now a level 10 Fighter and CR 9:

"A creature that possesses class levels, but does not have any racial Hit Dice, is factored in as a creature with a CR equal to its class levels –1"

And then we could give the level 10 Fighter PC wealth and make him CR 10:

"A classed NPC encountered with no gear should have his CR reduced by 1 (provided that loss of gear actually hampers the NPC), while a classed NPC that instead has gear equivalent to that of a PC (as listed on Table: Character Wealth by Level) has a CR of 1 higher than his actual CR."

PC Wealth and PC levels/ability scores DO increase CR by one each...but without those you start at level -2. Meaning a level 10 PC is actually CR 10. And four level 10 PCs are a CR 14 encounter -- or APL+4.

But hey, don't take my word for it. Read more here.

now and then let them feel like badasses who can clear hordes with single spells coz you know he's a wizard not a greengrocer.

The question is "how powerful are creatures if the PCs are facing a horde of them?"

I think though, it kind of illustrates why I don't really have a problem with a PC like that level 6 sorcerer you described. That character has put all his eggs in one basket and mostly capped out at level 6. His gimmick doesn't even come online until level 6, so until then he's not out of line. Then at level 6 he's already topped out the damage of a base fireball, so to get more damage he levels up he's always going to have to use metamagic feats.....I've always worried more about casters who specialize in SoS spells who completely neutralize an opponent with a single spell.

Unless/until I start running a campaign that simply ends if there's a TPK said PC might die and get replaced by an PC optimized for a higher level. Or that might happen if that PC only dies in such a way he cannot be (true) resurrected. You also have the issue of someone leaving for whatever reason and recruiting a replacement who comes in at the current party level. Or even the original PC simply getting tired of the character and wanting to play something new. That's why I don't really buy the "But he's optimized for that level and then gets weaker!" argument.

He also can still cast things like Glitterdust, Grease, Color Spray, etc just fine.

Also, he can fling around Intensified Fireballs at level 6 or above and at level 8 he can start flinging around Empowered Fireballs. At level 10 he gets Intensified Empowered Fireballs.

Finally, I think it's fair for me to worry about both casters one-shotting (or close to one-shotting difficult encounters) AND encounters neutralizing opponents with a single spell. It's not either/or.

Sorcerer does X damage 4 times a day = bad

Martial does X/2 damage all day long = okay

GMs come unstuck when they allow 15 minute work days so groups of PCs blast through reusable resources and then rest/recharge. They become unstuck when the PCs have all the time in the world to buff.

The sorcerer doesn't do X damage 4 times a day. He does X damage times Y mobs...and it becomes a lot more than 4 times a day pretty quickly. That's the concern.

Also, I don't allow 15 minute workdays. Nor do I allow all the time in the world to buff for many encounters (but I do allow it when it makes sense).

More later, but wanted to touch on one thing quickly...

And an APL+4 fight should certainly have a reasonable risk of PC death - which increases if people don't bother to use tactics.

Yeah, an APL+4 fight is the same CR as a mirror match. Clone the PCs and make them fight the clones. That's APL+4. Comes down to tactics, preparation, and luck. So if both sides have equally good tactics and each side has the same amount of preparation, it should literally be a 50% chance of either side winning.

I'm guessing Orc or Draconic bloodline plus cross-blooded or blood havoc, spell mastery and varisan tattoo, but that only gets CL up to +3 with fireball.

Spell Specialization, not Spell Mastery. Cross-blooded in this case, though Blood Havoc would also work (and you could have both at level 7 I believe).

Is there a trait that ups the CL of a specific spell by +1?

Yep.

I'm asking because I'm a bastard and the idea of throwing a bunch of 'puny' level 6 sorcerers who way out-punch their rank at my cocky group of 6 level 13 PCs in the game I'm running makes me giggle a bit.

Here's another amusing idea:

A level 3 Wizard with NPC wealth is CR2.

16 CR2s is only CR10 overall.

If all of them get off a Magic Missile that's 112 damage per round. No save, force damage. And your PCs are level 13, so you could increase those 16 wizards to 48 and it'd still only be a CR13 encounter. Even if the PCs kill half of that wizard mob the first round before any of them act...that's still 168 damage incoming from the remaining 24. More if you have any kind of damage bonus (Admixture Wizard would add 1 per spell, Orc Bloodline Sorcerer would be similar and add 2 per spell, etc).

...and that's not even counting Spell Specialization (bumps from 2 missiles to 3). Or add in Mage's Tattoo/Gifted Adept to make that four missiles per cast (or 14 average damage WITHOUT any damage bonuses) as a level 3 Wizard/Sorcerer.

Would I ever run this encounter? No. But if you want to be legally evil there's some food for thought.