Would I be correct in assuming that this game is still designed with the assumption of 4 player parties? And that modules and APs are written with this in mind?
I wonder if the flexibility of the action economy system and the seemingly increased healing options make it more feasible than before to be short a player
And is PFS still going to be 6 player (with adjustments for 4)
I assume the historic formula is being stuck to?
Yeah, I believe that it will balanced with the usual party size of 4.
But you can always adapt the encounter, if its written that its against 5 goblins and you have 3 players make it 4 goblins instead or 7-8 if you have like 6 players.
Against one single boss you can decrease their level (give it -1 in everything) if you have fewer players or give it one minion for each player that you have over 4.
Yeah, the playtest stuck with the default assumption of 4 PCs, and I can't imagine them changing this for the other published adventures moving forwards.
The playtest bestiary had rules for scaling encounters for more/fewer PCs, and they were really easy to use. So it should be fairly simple to scale the assumptions from the books for however many players you have in your group.
Yes in 1E it was always harder scaling for larger parties than smaller ones notably because of how popular solo villain/monster encounters were in a lot of published content
Arguably the really simple 3 action economy should help with scaling a bit because you can potentially use that as a guide as to what the enemies should have in response
Interesting to know the bestiary had advice. So safe to assume the final one will as well . I can’t say I agreed with the 1 E scaling advice that said combats should be the same for parties of 3-5. It will be interesting to see what is suggested
Too many players is unlikely to be the problem in my case!
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
From the playtest bestiary.
For each character in the party beyond the fourth,
include additional creatures worth an amount of XP
equal to the Character Adjustment value for your
encounter on Table 5. Don’t adjust the actual XP the
characters each gain for defeating the encounter.
If you have fewer than four characters, use the same
process in reverse: for each missing character, remove
creatures worth an amount of XP equal to the Character
Adjustment on Table 5 from the encounter, but keep the
XP that the characters each earn the same.
It’s best to use the XP increase from more characters
to add more enemies and the XP decrease from fewer
characters to subtract enemies, rather than making one
enemy tougher or weaker. Encounters are typically more
satisfying if the number of creatures is fairly close to the
number of player characters.
TABLE 5: ENCOUNTER BUDGET
Difficulty XP Budget Character Adjustment
Trivial 40 or less 10 or less
Low 60 15
High 80 20
Severe 120 30
Extreme 160 40
TABLE 4: CREATURE XP AND ROLE
Creature’s Level XP Suggested Role
Party’s level – 4 10 Low-threat minion
Party’s level – 3 15 Low- or high-threat minion
Party’s level – 2 20 Any minion or standard
Party’s level – 1 30 Any standard
Party level 40 Any standard or low-threat boss
Party’s level + 1 60 Low- or high-threat boss
Party’s level + 2 80 High- or severe-threat boss
Party’s level + 3 120 Severe- or extreme-threat boss
Party’s level + 4 160 Extreme-threat solo boss
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^^^ I really liked the Playtest Bestiary guidelines. It's clear this is an issue they wanted to iron out early. Now the only issue is making it make sense in some contexts since some monsters are very unlikely to have companions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
^^^ I really liked the Playtest Bestiary guidelines. It's clear this is an issue they wanted to iron out early. Now the only issue is making it make sense in some contexts since some monsters are very unlikely to have companions.
I've been building encounters for my homebrew playtest campaign for a while now, and have found that using non-enemy hazards (traps, terrain, etc.) in these circumstances work quite well. Complex hazards act on the initiative track, which can lead to some really tactical maneuvers from the players, keeping things interesting and letting them feel smart. But simple hazards work well too.
Buffing solo enemies seems like it will always be a challenge even in the new system. 5E legendary actions seems like the way but I assume taking that is too overt
But giving a boss 4 actions seems reasonable doesn’t it? But maybe of limited use if they are a melee machine. And it is still being targeted for damage and debuffs by multiple people
As the the elite monsters with +2. That seems like a bigger deal this time rounds due to the way criticals work (as do all to hit boosts)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think just giving them 4 actions will upset people. Many monsters though have Actions which provide better action ecomony making their standard 3 actions go further. The giant sea serpent for example has (if I remember correctly) a 2A activity that lets it move and deal damage to everyone it comes adjacent to during that move. The Maralith had incredibly dangerous economy options that let it make something like 5 attacks if a PC dared stay within its reach.Buffing solo enemies seems like it will always be a challenge even in the new system. 5E legendary actions seems like the way but I assume taking that is too overt
But giving a boss 4 actions seems reasonable doesn’t it? But maybe of limited use if they are a melee machine. And it is still being targeted for damage and debuffs by multiple people
As the the elite monsters with +2. That seems like a bigger deal this time rounds due to the way criticals work (as do all to hit boosts)
This is fair enough . Time will tell with the bestiary
A hydra seems to have a 2A ability that lets it attack everyone it can reachThe real challenge will be solo villain humanoids like your BBEG wizard
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I received the book yesterday and noticed something right away. The opening "in-Golarion fiction blurb" features three iconics in a party, as does the Example of Play section. And the third paragraph in the introduction says:
The game is typically played in a group of four to seven players, with one of those players serving as the group's Game Master.
Maybe they really are implying that you can play with only three party members, now that things like healing and rituals are open to classes other than the traditional ones they used to be locked to?
