Got a rules question about Pathfinder Second Edition? Post it here! And we might answer them on stream!

[nick gray 117]

Dont know if this has been answered but if you have the natural medicine feat and the battle medicine feat, can you use nature to do battle medicine?

Natural medicine: trained in nature. You can apply natural cues to heal your allies. You can use nature instead of medicine to treat wounds. If your in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to treat wounds using nature, subject to gm discretion.

Battle medicine: trained in medicine. You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a medicine check with the same dc as for treat wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing. As with treat wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. Ther target is then immune to your battle medicine for 1 day

[azjauthor]

I would say no on this. Natural Medicine applies only to the Treat Wounds Activity, whereas Battle Medicine is an Action "with the same DC as for treat wounds."

[Aratorin]

nick gray 117 wrote:

Dont know if this has been answered but if you have the natural medicine feat and the battle medicine feat, can you use nature to do battle medicine?

Natural medicine: trained in nature. You can apply natural cues to heal your allies. You can use nature instead of medicine to treat wounds. If your in the wilderness, you might have easier access to fresh ingredients, allowing you to gain a +2 circumstance bonus to your check to treat wounds using nature, subject to gm discretion.

Battle medicine: trained in medicine. You can patch up yourself or an adjacent ally, even in combat. Attempt a medicine check with the same dc as for treat wounds and provide the corresponding amount of healing. As with treat wounds, you can attempt checks against higher DCs if you have the minimum proficiency rank. Ther target is then immune to your battle medicine for 1 day

This has not been definitively answered. Search the forums and you will find many threads arguing about it.

[Gaulin]

Is there somewhere the answered questions are summed up? I'm not able to watch streams most of the time, and it feels like asking questions in this thread is basically throwing out questions and hoping that other posters have an answer (which is nice, but would be nice to see a dev answer to an already asked question).

[Ezekieru]

Gaulin wrote:

Is there somewhere the answered questions are summed up? I'm not able to watch streams most of the time, and it feels like asking questions in this thread is basically throwing out questions and hoping that other posters have an answer (which is nice, but would be nice to see a dev answer to an already asked question).

Not really, since aside from the stream back in August (when the game first game out), there hasn't been a rules-focused stream at all. Whenever there's been a Pathfinder Friday, it's either been about an upcoming book (Gods & Magic or the GMG mostly), or lore questions with James Jacobs.

People are posting in here, hoping there'll be another one soon. But given the pandemic and most Paizo staff working from home, there's little-to-no chance of that happening any time soon. We'll be super lucky if we get another installment of errata before the pandemic is over. Not that I mind.

[Squirrelbomber0]

Aratorin wrote:

"CRB Pg. 93 wrote:

QUAKING STOMP [one-action] FEAT 20

BARBARIAN MANIPULATE RAGE
Frequency once per 10 minutes
You stomp the ground with such force that it creates a minor earthquake, with the effects of the earthquake spell.

Do you get the effects of the 8th level Earthquake Spell, or is it auto heightened to 10th like an Innate Spell would be?

Can this be counteracted, or is it a non-spell effect because it's caused by me physically stomping?

I am very curious about this too, also does the rough terrain and possibility of falling into fissures affect the barbarian who's causing it.

[Syri]

Squirrelbomber0 wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

"CRB Pg. 93 wrote:

QUAKING STOMP [one-action] FEAT 20

BARBARIAN MANIPULATE RAGE
Frequency once per 10 minutes
You stomp the ground with such force that it creates a minor earthquake, with the effects of the earthquake spell.

Do you get the effects of the 8th level Earthquake Spell, or is it auto heightened to 10th like an Innate Spell would be?

Can this be counteracted, or is it a non-spell effect because it's caused by me physically stomping?

I am very curious about this too, also does the rough terrain and possibility of falling into fissures affect the barbarian who's causing it.

Well, for Aratorin's first question, it wouldn't heighten. No spell is heightened unless its source says that it's heightened. Innate spells aren't an exception; only cantrips and focus spells heighten implicitly.

[Ed Reppert]

Syri wrote:

Well, for Aratorin's first question, it wouldn't heighten. No spell is heightened unless its source says that it's heightened. Innate spells aren't an exception; only cantrips and focus spells heighten implicitly.

I'm not so sure about that. The "Heighten" entry in the spell description describes special effects. But I seem to remember that any spell can be heightened. If there is no special effect described, then it affects the spell DC (I think). I don't have time right now to look up the details. Sorry about that.

[Gaulin]

Spell DC won't change, but counteract checks are dependant on spell level for sure.

[Aratorin]

Syri is right that it wouldn't heighten, but it still needs to tell you what level of Earthquake Spell it uses.

[Mormonkniv]

An interesting situation has arisen in my group,

We have a universalist wizard with the druid dedication archetype and basic druid spellcasting. As we know, wizards are prepared casters that learn spells from scrolls, but also add 2 spells to their spell book for free, every time they level up.

Druids on the other hand, automatically know every primal spell at each spell level they are able to cast.

MY QUESTION:
Would said wizard with druid dedication and basic druid spellcasting automatically add all of the overlapping level 1 spells between the primal and arcane traditions to their wizard spellbook?

EXAMPLE: Acidic Burst is a primal spell and also an arcane spell. Does this wizard learn how to cast the arcane version of Acidic Burst when he learns how to cast it as a primal spell through basic druid spellcasting?

[Rysky]

No.

[Gaulin]

One thing I'm not sure about is innate cantrips proficiency. If a PC got a cantrip through their ancestry, say a gnome primal cantrip, and picked a class that was trained and leveled up in spell DCs of a different spell list, would the primal cantrip apply the different spell lists proficiency?

In the spellcasting section it says if you raise your casting proficiency apply that to your innate spells, but I don't know if it would cross spell lists.

[Mormonkniv]

Rysky wrote:

No.

Thanks for the reply!

Where do I point my player to that proves that?

I love Pathfinder 2e because it is better defined than DND 5E. I need to use less DM fiat because the rules are more specific.

Do the rules specifically state somewhere that characters cannot use their archetype casting tradition to learn spells in their primary casting tradition?

"The spellbook contains your choice of 10 arcane cantrips and five 1st-level arcane spells. You choose these from the common spells on the arcane spell list from this book (page 307) or from other arcane spells you gain access to." (https://2e.aonprd.com/Classes.aspx?ID=12, Spellbook)

Acidic Burst is *technically* an arcane spell AND a primal spell. Does it say anywhere that the same spell in different traditions is inherently different?

So...if Acidic Burst is an arcane spell and the player has "gotten access to" it, where do I point my player to prove that your statement is correct?

Thanks!
Is a scroll of *primal* Acidic Burst *different* from a scroll of *arcane* Acidic Burst?

[Rysky]

This is more a case of your player needs to point to a rule that specifically allows this, nothing in Wizard or the Arcana skill (what a Wizard would use to learn more spells outside of leveling up), say they automatically add spells to their spellbook from a different Tradition when multiclassing.

They could use the Arcana version of Learn A Spell though to gain the Arcane version to put in their spellbook.

As for Scrolls I want to say so but I’m not sure, so probably not.

[Rysky]

Gaulin wrote:

One thing I'm not sure about is innate cantrips proficiency. If a PC got a cantrip through their ancestry, say a gnome primal cantrip, and picked a class that was trained and leveled up in spell DCs of a different spell list, would the primal cantrip apply the different spell lists proficiency?

In the spellcasting section it says if you raise your casting proficiency apply that to your innate spells, but I don't know if it would cross spell lists.

Innate Spells p. 302 wrote:

Certain spells are natural to your character, typically coming from your ancestry or a magic item rather than your class. You can cast your innate spells even if you aren't a member of a spellcasting class. The ability that gives you an innate spell tells you how often you can cast it—usually once per day—and its magical tradition. Innate spells are refreshed during your daily preparations. Innate

cantrips are cast at will and automatically heightened as normal for cantrips (see Cantrips on page 300) unless otherwise specified. You're always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren't otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified. If you have an innate spell, you can cast it, even if it's not of a spell level you can normally cast. This is especially common for monsters, which might be able to cast innate spells far beyond what a character of the same level could use. You can't use your spell slots to cast your innate spells, but you might have an innate spell and also be able to prepare or cast the same spell through your class. You also can't heighten innate spells, but some abilities that grant innate spells might give you the spell at a higher level than its base level or change the level at which you cast the spell.

From my reading only the Proficiency level matters, not the Tradition.

[Gaulin]

Rysky wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

One thing I'm not sure about is innate cantrips proficiency. If a PC got a cantrip through their ancestry, say a gnome primal cantrip, and picked a class that was trained and leveled up in spell DCs of a different spell list, would the primal cantrip apply the different spell lists proficiency?

In the spellcasting section it says if you raise your casting proficiency apply that to your innate spells, but I don't know if it would cross spell lists.

Innate Spells p. 302 wrote:

Certain spells are natural to your character, typically coming from your ancestry or a magic item rather than your class. You can cast your innate spells even if you aren't a member of a spellcasting class. The ability that gives you an innate spell tells you how often you can cast it—usually once per day—and its magical tradition. Innate spells are refreshed during your daily preparations. Innate

cantrips are cast at will and automatically heightened as normal for cantrips (see Cantrips on page 300) unless otherwise specified. You're always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren't otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too. You use your Charisma modifier as your spellcasting ability modifier for innate spells unless otherwise specified. If you have an innate spell, you can cast it, even if it's not of a spell level you can normally cast. This is especially common for monsters, which might be able to cast innate spells far beyond what a character of the same level could use. You can't use your spell slots to cast your innate spells, but you might have an innate spell and also be able to prepare or cast the same spell through your class. You also can't heighten innate spells, but some abilities that grant innate spells might give you the spell at a higher level than its base level or change the level at which

...

That is what it looks like, isn't it? Seems a little too good to be true. Makes cantrips on a champion pretty appealing.

[Rysky]

“Too good to be true.” Not really? It’s nice for that cantrip but having higher DCs for them certainly isn’t overpowering anything.

[graystone]

Gaulin wrote:

That is what it looks like, isn't it?

You still have to use Cha even when you use your classes spell proficiency so it's only good if you're already a cha caster. Since Cha doesn't give you as much as other stats, I think of your innate spells using it as a plus making the stat better not "too good".

[Gaulin]

I suppose I'm just used to having to spend 4 feats on most martials to get a decent proficiency, I don't mean to doubt your answers. Nice to be able to have backup damage options.

[Quandary]

Rysky wrote:

This is more a case of your player needs to point to a rule that specifically allows this, nothing in Wizard or the Arcana skill (what a Wizard would use to learn more spells outside of leveling up), say they automatically add spells to their spellbook from a different Tradition when multiclassing.

This is the crux of Mormonkniv (or their player's) confusion, they are playing with very loose layman's approximation which is conflating 'learning a spell' and 'having access'. Those are actually technically distinct things. Nothing here really depends on the Tradition distinction, it would work exactly the same for a Wizard with Arcane Sorceror Multiclass with Acid Splash in Repertoire.

A Wizard already 'has access' to ALL common spells in their tradition, including Acidic Burst, 'access' denoting what is eligible to potentially be added to their spellbook. But they can only prepare spells in their spellbook, not everything they have this theoretical 'access' for. Unlike Wizards, Druids and Clerics do have free choice from all Common spells of Tradition when they prepare spells, this being key distinction of those classes.

So having a Multiclass also able to cast that spell really doesn't matter. The Wizard could add Acid Splash to their spellbook as part of free level-up process, irrespective of Multiclass, or they could scribe it *at cost* to spellbook which just needs a source to acquire spell from. That is often a scroll or other spellbook, but can also just be spending time talking with somebody else able to cast the spell, including a Druid. If they are able to cast the spell themself via Druid Multiclass, I would generously say they fulfill that requirement themself, but the generosity is ignoring the "other person" phrasing of Learn a Spell, not allowing Druidic casting to provide the source.

So it's not like other Wizards would be especially impressed that they added the spell to their spellbook this way, it's almost irrelevant (not to mention becoming a Druid Multiclass presumably requires talking with a Druid, to learn their secret language). And until they add it to their spellbook (either at cost with source, or for free as level up which doesn't need specific source) the fact they can cast it in Multiclass slots is irrelevant to their Wizard slot preparation.

TLDR I can see such a character wanting to do this, and it may be slightly more convenient for them if speaking to a friendly Druid willing to teach them a spell might not be an immediate option. But it isn't really anything with broader mechanical impact to game. I get the impression their conflation of rules concepts was leading them to think they could bypass the normal scribing costs of Learn a Spell (or level-based spellbook expansion, which doesn't even need specific source) which definitely isn't true.

[Syri]

Gaulin wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Gaulin wrote:

One thing I'm not sure about is innate cantrips proficiency. If a PC got a cantrip through their ancestry, say a gnome primal cantrip, and picked a class that was trained and leveled up in spell DCs of a different spell list, would the primal cantrip apply the different spell lists proficiency?

In the spellcasting section it says if you raise your casting proficiency apply that to your innate spells, but I don't know if it would cross spell lists.

Innate Spells p. 302 wrote:

You're always trained in spell attack rolls and spell DCs for your innate spells, even if you aren't otherwise trained in spell attack rolls or spell DCs. If your proficiency in spell attack rolls or spell DCs is expert or better, apply that proficiency to your innate spells, too.

That is what it looks like, isn't it? Seems a little too good to be true. Makes cantrips on a champion pretty appealing.

Yes, it does. I believe this incentive is very good for game balance, as without it, many options become unintuitively enormously outclassed by cheaper ones; but given the fact that this interpretation's generosity inevitably creates ability for abuse, I'm doubtful that it's exactly RAI. Rules often need to lean conservative for Society Organized Play, and the quoted paragraph oddly never acknowledges the existence of magical traditions--I would only be 100% convinced of an intent to override the general rule that spells of a tradition use that tradition's proficiency if the text had called out that this is such an exception. There may be need for the design team to consult each other to figure out what that particular sentence's writer was thinking at the time and what the team as a whole believes to be best for the ongoing health of the game. I hope they don't issue an erratum or FAQ ruling out the generous interpretation, but I wouldn't be surprised if they do.

[Rysky]

The Innate Spells wording on p. 302 is the specific to override the general.

[Falco271]

Syri wrote:

The cleric feats Healing Hands, Harming Hands, and Holy Castigation only proc when you "cast" a heal/harm spell, but Channel Smite only has you "expend" a heal/harm spell. Since you do not perform the Cast a Spell activity, is it intentional that Holy Castigation does not allow me to Channel Smite against fiends?

Most post you read on the forum regarding this (not many) include healing/harming hands in the numbers, and some mention holy castigation too (even less).

Very much interested in the answer to this question too, as it makes the channel smite kinda useless.

[Themetricsystem]

If a Spell is cast due to the Activation of a Magic Item, does that AUTOMATICALLY make it an Innate Spell even if the statblock for said Magic Item fails to list it as an Innate Spell?

This is important because if the answer is YES, as the base description of what Innate Spells ARE suggests, then Scrolls, Wands, and Staff Magic Items are SEVERLY underpowered.

The RAW here seems to indicate that ANY Spell used as part of an Activation, or granted to a PC from a Magic Item is considered an Innate Spell and the following rules regarding the Save DC indicate that you must ALWAYS use Charisma unless it specifically says otherwise, that being that most specific of ANY instruction which would override ANY normal Class DC regardless of if a given Spell is indeed in the proper Tradition and Spells Known/Memorized/Repertoire list.

A number of PF2 tools seem to all treat this differently, in some cases it practically just ignores the Innate Spell rules for SOME things but enforces it for others while other tools universally treat all Spells granted from Magic Items as Innate and enforce Cha as the guiding stat.

In other words: Does the Wizard have a DC 24 Fireball or a DC 20 Fireball when using the Charges from their Staff or a Wand?

[Staffan Johansson]

Ed Reppert wrote:

Syri wrote:

Well, for Aratorin's first question, it wouldn't heighten. No spell is heightened unless its source says that it's heightened. Innate spells aren't an exception; only cantrips and focus spells heighten implicitly.

I'm not so sure about that. The "Heighten" entry in the spell description describes special effects. But I seem to remember that any spell can be heightened. If there is no special effect described, then it affects the spell DC (I think). I don't have time right now to look up the details. Sorry about that.

While any spell can be heightened, that's not what I think Aratorin's asking.

With the exception of cantrips, innate spells are cast at their normal level unless otherwise specified. If something says it works like an earthquake spell, it means the regular 8th level earthquake unless it says something like "a 10th level earthquake spell".

In addition, the barbarian isn't casting the earthquake spell when they use Quaking Stomp. They are performing the Quaking Stomp action. For simplicity's sake, this references earthquake, but the barbarian isn't casting a spell. You can't counterspell a Quaking Stomp, because it's not a spell. If you had some ability that allowed you to pacify natural disasters, that would work, and I believe the counteract level of a Quaking Stomp would be half the barbarian's level, so effectively 10.

I also don't see anything about the barbarian herself being immune to any of the effects of the quake. With the spell, you have a range of 500 ft, but I would rule that the barbarian herself is at the center of a Quaking Stomp. Hulk-smashing the ground to disable nearby foes makes perfect sense, but not sending shockwaves through the ground to topple a house way over there.

[Chaos Monk]

I'm curious if Monk Stances have "handedness" intentionally. For example, Wolf Style calls out "with your hands held like fanged teeth" and Tangled Forest Stance says "You extend your arms like gnarled branches to interfere with your foes’ movements." I, of course, understand the flavor behind such verbiage, but does this mean you cannot use your feet, elbow, or head to make Wolf Jaw or Lashing Branch attacks from those stances respectively?

A clearer example question would be: If I'm holding a two-handed weapon and in say, Wolf Stance (with your hands held like fanged teeth), can I swing my two-handed weapon then use my Wolf Jaw attacks with my feet/elbows/head?

I'm just not sure if those words ("hands/arms") were chosen specifically to limit limb usage, or were just flavor text that might be unintentionally limiting monks.

[Makyura]

Hello, i've searched a bit for it, but seems to not really find it anywhere.
What is exactly considered "adjacent"? Of course, logic dictates that all the square left/right and up/down are adjacent. But is there a location where it's clearly stated that the diagonales count as being adjacent? I would assume they are since, since standard reach is 5 feet, and according to the distance rule, the first diagonale count as 5 feet. But do they count as adjacent?

Thanks

[Rysky]

If the squares touch at any point they're adjacent.

[Gary Bush]

I did not see "adjacent" defined in the CRB.

So using Google Dictionary

Quote:

next to or adjoining something else.

Looking at diagonals, I believe those would count as adjacent because they fit the definition.

What is causing you to ask?

[Makyura]

Thanks Rysky, what i though too. Was it from a PF1 FAQ?

I was wondering because of the fighter feat, Swipe. You can make two strike only if two foes are in your range and adjacent to each other. Whithout diagonales counting as adjacent, it would mean that you could only use it when one of them is in front of you, and the other in your diagonale, but wouldn't work with one guy on your front, and the other on your left/right.

[Rysky]

Not a FAQ, that's just a case of using the actual definition of the word ^w^

(The combat chapter on position might go over it though)

[Nefreet]

Coincidentally, after playing Carcassonne with my mother this weekend, I can attest that the diagonal=adjacent was hard for her to understand.

Anything surrounding a square is adjacent, is how I explained it to her.

[Riktuk]

Does anyone know what the spell level would be of the comprehend languages provided by the resonant power of a gold nodule aeon stone (CRB 605)? I don't see anything clarifying it in the Innate Spells section (CRB 302), since it's not a cantrip that would be auto-heightened. 3rd level, since it's a Level 6 item and a 6th level spellcaster would have access to 3rd level spells?

[HunterCyprus84]

If two medium creatures are swallowed whole by a large creature (say, a crocodile) and one of those creatures deals enough damage to rupture the creature, would both creatures be freed?

[Ubertron_X]

Nefreet wrote:

Coincidentally, after playing Carcassonne with my mother this weekend, I can attest that the diagonal=adjacent was hard for her to understand.

Anything surrounding a square is adjacent, is how I explained it to her.

And this people is just one of the reasons why hexes are far superior to squares. ;)

[Ravingdork]

HunterCyprus84 wrote:

If two medium creatures are swallowed whole by a large creature (say, a crocodile) and one of those creatures deals enough damage to rupture the creature, would both creatures be freed?

If the monster takes piercing or slashing damage equaling or exceeding the listed Rupture value from a single attack or spell, the engulfed creature cuts itself free.

It seems to only indicate that a singular creature gets freed. I suspect a second victim would have to cut their own way out.

[Tarpeius]

Does invoking Take Cover with a tower shield impart the full benefits of the action? I would have thought so except the following made be wonder if it just provides the boost to AC:

Quote:

When you have a tower shield raised, you can use the Take Cover action (page 471) to increase the circumstance bonus to AC to +4.

Full Take Cover rules for reference:

Quote:

You press yourself against a wall or duck behind an obstacle to take better advantage of cover. If you would have standard cover, you instead gain greater cover, which provides a +4 circumstance bonus to AC; to Reflex saves against area effects; and to Stealth checks to Hide, Sneak, or otherwise avoid detection. Otherwise, you gain the benefits of standard cover (a +2 circumstance bonus instead). This lasts until you move from your current space, use an attack action, become unconscious, or end this effect as a free action.

[Rysky]

I'd say so, yes, otherwise they'd just say you get the AC boost.

[Tarpeius]

Rysky wrote:

I'd say so, yes, otherwise they'd just say you get the AC boost.

It kind of does say that?

[Matthew Downie]

The wording suggests you'd get +4 to AC and +2 to Reflex saves and Stealth checks.

[Rysky]

Tarpeius wrote:

Rysky wrote:

I'd say so, yes, otherwise they'd just say you get the AC boost.

It kind of does say that?

It's there because you have to have it raised and then take cover, you can't just take cover I believe (and having a shield raised already adds to your AC, hence the need to specify).

[Rakshara of the Flame]

The Wand of Manifold Missiles - https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=370 - says:

Quote:

Effect: You cast magic missile of the indicated level. After you cast the spell, an additional missile or missiles are released from the wand at the start of each of your turns, as though you cast the 1-action version of magic missile. Choose targets each time. This lasts for 1 minute, until you’re no longer wielding the wand, or until you try to activate the wand again.

"Choose targets each time" - is this a free action?

[Aratorin]

Scott Raun wrote:

The Wand of Manifold Missiles - https://2e.aonprd.com/Equipment.aspx?ID=370 - says:

Quote:

Effect: You cast magic missile of the indicated level. After you cast the spell, an additional missile or missiles are released from the wand at the start of each of your turns, as though you cast the 1-action version of magic missile. Choose targets each time. This lasts for 1 minute, until you’re no longer wielding the wand, or until you try to activate the wand again.

"Choose targets each time" - is this a free action?

Yes. Nothing indicates that you spend any Actions.

[Rocannon II]

Here's hoping I'm not incredibly dense; Table 10-8 XP awards are based on party level. Tables 10-1 and 10-2 are for building an encounter. When it comes to awarding XP, do I have to break the encounter down to determine how much to Award? i.e. A 4th level party encounters a Severe 4, Made up of a Creature 5 and 4 Creature 1 s, do I award XP of Party level? Or do I award Party +1 plus 4 Party-3?

[Aratorin]

Party+1 + (4 x Party-3).

You already had to break the Encounter down to build it, and the XP cost of each creature towards the Budget is the exact same amount of XP they reward when defeated though, so there's no extra work involved.

In your example the XP cost of those Creatures towards the Budget is 120 XP, and the amount the Encounter rewards is 120 XP.

[Staffan Johansson]

Rocannon II wrote:

Here's hoping I'm not incredibly dense; Table 10-8 XP awards are based on party level. Tables 10-1 and 10-2 are for building an encounter. When it comes to awarding XP, do I have to break the encounter down to determine how much to Award? i.e. A 4th level party encounters a Severe 4, Made up of a Creature 5 and 4 Creature 1 s, do I award XP of Party level? Or do I award Party +1 plus 4 Party-3?

Yes and no. For a 4-PC group, it should be fairly interchangeable - the XP budget for an encounter should be the same as the XP reward, give or take a rounding error. In your example, a Severe encounter is worth 120 XP. A PL+1 creature is worth 60 XP, and each PL-3 creature 15 XP. 60+4*15 = 120 XP, which is what the encounter should be worth.

For larger or smaller groups, adjust the XP budget, but keep the XP reward. So if you had five PCs, your Severe 4 encounter should have 150 XP worth of foes in it (perhaps there are six minions instead of four), but it still only rewards each PC 120 XP.

[Rocannon II]

Aratorin wrote:

Party+1 + (4 x Party-3).

You already had to break the Encounter down to build it, and the XP cost of each creature towards the Budget is the exact same amount of XP they reward when defeated though, so there's no extra work involved.

In your example the XP cost of those Creatures towards the Budget is 120 XP, and the amount the Encounter rewards is 120 XP.

I was asking because I'm running Age of Ashes, and the PCs seem to be leveling more slowly than the Mod suggested. Thanks to the advice given I can now adjust XP before the next Mod. But now I will have to Break down future encounters to dole out XP. Perhaps the Good folks at Paizo could add something to help.

[Aratorin]

Rocannon II wrote:

Aratorin wrote:

Party+1 + (4 x Party-3).

You already had to break the Encounter down to build it, and the XP cost of each creature towards the Budget is the exact same amount of XP they reward when defeated though, so there's no extra work involved.

In your example the XP cost of those Creatures towards the Budget is 120 XP, and the amount the Encounter rewards is 120 XP.

I was asking because I'm running Age of Ashes, and the PCs seem to be leveling more slowly than the Mod suggested. Thanks to the advice given I can now adjust XP before the next Mod. But now I will have to Break down future encounters to dole out XP. Perhaps the Good folks at Paizo could add something to help.

It's true that the APs don't do a good job of telling you how much XP the Encounter is worth.

[Staffan Johansson]

Aratorin wrote:

It's true that the APs don't do a good job of telling you how much XP the Encounter is worth.

I don't know about Age of Ashes, but each encounter I've seen in Extinction Curse says something like "Severe 2" or "Moderate 4". That means it's a Severe encounter for a 2nd level party and a Moderate encounter for a 4th level party*, which in turn tells you how much XP the encounter is worth.

* These are not the same encounter at different levels. Encounters in a part of the adventure meant for 2nd level characters will have "Low 2" or "Severe 2" while one in the part meant for 4th level will have "Moderate 4" or "Low 4".