I mean, kinda. You can use lv+1 creatures as ‘leads’ or ‘highlights’ in regular encounters without that being a ‘bossfight’. I’d say lv+3 is more likely to be a bossfight, with lv+2 being a candidate if conditions are favourable.
Not kinda, it is right out from the encounter difficult and building descriptions Preparing Adventures
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
And from the monk class key terms
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and that creature improves the degree of success of its saving throws for that effect by one step."
So per the rules definition it is indeed correct to say, stunning fist is nerfed on bosses.
You should not be using lvl+3 for routine boss fights, as that difficulty is intended for the all-in win or lose the campaign fight it has high TPK risk with certain PK.
I don't have time to read the link - what do you mean by encounter and level boss in the above comment?
So would +2 be the boss for an AP chapter but +3 the entire AP? Or would +2 be for each mini boss in each book?
I would be intrigued to know how RPG gaming is spread throughout the world. Where is is more prevalent in general etc
Like is it an urban liberal thing in the US or a “middle America” thing for example . Or is it pretty even ? And this isn’t necessarily paizo exclusive
But this isn’t directly related to this thread . Which board would that be?
I mean, kinda. You can use lv+1 creatures as ‘leads’ or ‘highlights’ in regular encounters without that being a ‘bossfight’. I’d say lv+3 is more likely to be a bossfight, with lv+2 being a candidate if conditions are favourable.
Not kinda, it is right out from the encounter difficult and building descriptions Preparing Adventures
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
And from the monk class key terms
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and that creature improves the degree of success of its saving throws for that effect by one step."
So per the rules definition it is indeed correct to say, stunning fist is nerfed on bosses.
You should not be using lvl+3 for routine boss fights, as that difficulty is intended for the all-in win or lose the campaign fight it has high TPK risk with certain PK.
I don't have time to read the link - what do you mean by encounter and level boss in the above comment?
So would +2 be the boss for an AP chapter but +3 the entire AP? Or would +2 be for each mini boss in each book?
Normally I’ve been using +1s for segments, +2s for arcs, and a single +3 creature over the course of a few books, but I’m running WftC so I tend to lean more on the noncombat stuff.
I mean, kinda. You can use lv+1 creatures as ‘leads’ or ‘highlights’ in regular encounters without that being a ‘bossfight’. I’d say lv+3 is more likely to be a bossfight, with lv+2 being a candidate if conditions are favourable.
Not kinda, it is right out from the encounter difficult and building descriptions Preparing Adventures
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
And from the monk class key terms
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and that creature improves the degree of success of its saving throws for that effect by one step."
So per the rules definition it is indeed correct to say, stunning fist is nerfed on bosses.
You should not be using lvl+3 for routine boss fights, as that difficulty is intended for the all-in win or lose the campaign fight it has high TPK risk with certain PK.
I don't have time to read the link - what do you mean by encounter and level boss in the above comment?
So would +2 be the boss for an AP chapter but +3 the entire AP? Or would +2 be for each mini boss in each book?
Well that is left open to interpretation. Level boss could be the players level, or it could be the level of the dungeon, or could be both that each level of the dungeon is a player level. Campaign boss could mean level 20 at the end of the AP. Or it could be the end of that adventure that is not on a path.
Or if you are the designer of PF2e and you get to make the first adventure, then you roll your hands in glee as you make most of the encounters severe including the level openers and even throw some severe ones back to back, and then just to see if they are worthy of defeating the adventure boss - dump them into an entire barrack of orcs and their chief and sniper at the player. Hey it is a new edition no body minded making several characters to get thru that one.
My point was that boss in PF2e does mean level higher than you, so me saying the feat is nerfed on bosses was per the rules language.
It’s a bit of a semantics conversation. Monsters of a higher level than the players is always going to be “notable” in their prowess but may not (in the player’s minds) constitute a boss encounter.
I'm not suggesting she's lying; merely stating the fact that her telling us what the data means vs. us having the data ourselves is not the same thing. Lisa implied that they were.
No. You inferred that. Lisa implied nothing.
in·fer
/inˈfər/
Learn to pronounce
verb
past tense: inferred; past participle: inferred
deduce or conclude (information) from evidence and reasoning rather than from explicit statements.
"from these facts we can infer that crime has been increasing"
im·plied
/imˈplīd/
Learn to pronounce
adjective
adjective: implied
suggested but not directly expressed; implicit.
"she was aware of his implied criticism"
I mean, kinda. You can use lv+1 creatures as ‘leads’ or ‘highlights’ in regular encounters without that being a ‘bossfight’. I’d say lv+3 is more likely to be a bossfight, with lv+2 being a candidate if conditions are favourable.
Not kinda, it is right out from the encounter difficult and building descriptions Preparing Adventures
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
And from the monk class key terms
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and that creature improves the degree of success of its saving throws for that effect by one step."
So per the rules definition it is indeed correct to say, stunning fist is nerfed on bosses.
You should not be using lvl+3 for routine boss fights, as that difficulty is intended for the all-in win or lose the campaign fight it has high TPK risk with certain PK.
At least for APs, Paizo seems to use level+3 more as a "book boss" - most of the books end with one.
As far as campaign boss goes, we only have one example, but the Age of Ashes campaign boss is level+4, which sounds downright terrifying.
I mean, kinda. You can use lv+1 creatures as ‘leads’ or ‘highlights’ in regular encounters without that being a ‘bossfight’. I’d say lv+3 is more likely to be a bossfight, with lv+2 being a candidate if conditions are favourable.
Not kinda, it is right out from the encounter difficult and building descriptions Preparing Adventures
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
And from the monk class key terms
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and that creature improves the degree of success of its saving throws for that effect by one step."
So per the rules definition it is indeed correct to say, stunning fist is nerfed on bosses.
You should not be using lvl+3 for routine boss fights, as that difficulty is intended for the all-in win or lose the campaign fight it has high TPK risk with certain PK.
At least for APs, Paizo seems to use level+3 more as a "book boss" - most of the books end with one.
As far as campaign boss goes, we only have one example, but the Age of Ashes campaign boss is level+4, which sounds downright terrifying.
There are some mitigating factors there. Also I don't think book one boss is +3, so I suspect part of that is assuming higher and higher level parties can prepare for harder and harder fights, but I don't know.
There are some mitigating factors there. Also I don't think book one boss is +3
For Age of Ashes, book 1:
The "theoretical" book boss is a multiple-enemy encounter headed by a boss of level+1, but directly before that encounter is a monstrous level+3 that has been annihilating tables.
I'm still largely amazed that Zweihander is as good a system as it actually is if you can look past all the ahem homages (which are easily the worst part of the book along with incorporating in jokes that aren't the small but vicious dog).
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
That's one of the issues with PF2 bosses (and D&D3 bosses before that): their power level reflective to the PCs is essentially determined by a single number. This means that all that power is concentrated in a single opponent, who can often drop a PC in a single attack routine.
4e solos, on the other hand, were specifically designed to counter a party of PCs through "width" - they would have abilities that triggered when attacked or when creatures get near them, AOE abilities, abilities that negated crowd-control, and so on. This would give them an enormous damage output, but not focused on a single PC.
5e tries to do this a little with legendary creatures and their legendary actions and legendary resistance, but PF2 doesn't have anything similar. This is, at least to me, one of the system's weaker points.
I mean, kinda. You can use lv+1 creatures as ‘leads’ or ‘highlights’ in regular encounters without that being a ‘bossfight’. I’d say lv+3 is more likely to be a bossfight, with lv+2 being a candidate if conditions are favourable.
Not kinda, it is right out from the encounter difficult and building descriptions Preparing Adventures
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
And from the monk class key terms
"Incapacitation: An ability with this trait can take a character out of the fight. But when you use an incapacitation effect against a creature of higher level than you, you reduce the degree of success of your attack roll by one step, and that creature improves the degree of success of its saving throws for that effect by one step."
So per the rules definition it is indeed correct to say, stunning fist is nerfed on bosses.
You should not be using lvl+3 for routine boss fights, as that difficulty is intended for the all-in win or lose the campaign fight it has high TPK risk with certain PK.
At least for APs, Paizo seems to use level+3 more as a "book boss" - most of the books end with one.
As far as campaign boss goes, we only have one example, but the Age of Ashes campaign boss is level+4, which sounds downright terrifying.
There are some mitigating factors there. Also I don't think book one boss is +3, so I suspect part of that is assuming higher...
Since all the released adventures was done before the rules was complete (you can watch the paizo streams where they discuss this) it would be a mistake to assume thse adventures are the rules to follow. Only the next ones should be following the rules (unless the designer does not want to!)
The language is also fuzzy in the rules
"Extreme threat encounters [160XP]...for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign"
it also says +3 or +4 are extreme bosses, but actually to make the +3 boss an extreme encounter it needs lackeys
"Severe-threat encounters [120XP] ...are most appropriate for important moments in your story, such as confronting a final boss.
it also says +2 or +3 are severe bosses, but actually to make the +2 boss a severe encounter it needs lackeys.
Since IMO boss encounters are tactically better with lackeys I used the lower numbers in my table above. Step up the number if you prefer solo bosses.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
krazmuze wrote:
it is clear that
lvl+3 is a campaign boss
lvl+2 is a level boss
lvl+1 is an encounter boss
lvl+0 maybe a low-threat boss or standard creature.
This is very good encounter design rules because it makes it very easy to know what level your bosses you pick should be.
That's one of the issues with PF2 bosses (and D&D3 bosses before that): their power level reflective to the PCs is essentially determined by a single number. This means that all that power is concentrated in a single opponent, who can often drop a PC in a single attack routine.
4e solos, on the other hand, were specifically designed to counter a party of PCs through "width" - they would have abilities that triggered when attacked or when creatures get near them, AOE abilities, abilities that negated crowd-control, and so on. This would give them an enormous damage output, but not focused on a single PC.
5e tries to do this a little with legendary creatures and their legendary actions and legendary resistance, but PF2 doesn't have anything similar. This is, at least to me, one of the system's weaker points.
See my other post, the boss table in the rules is fuzzier on the levels than my table, You would step up the number for solos, what I posted was assuming they had lackeys. Solos take care of themselves in PF2e - just step up the level.
Bosses multiply their critical success range whilst forcing players to multiple their critical failure range - this is what the +level stats and critical range math accomplishes.
So +level gives multiplied crits so they can destroy the party solo, (crits for spells and weapons double all damage not just die, and there are critical weapon effects and critical ability feats on top of that) as they cannot be shutdown with the +level also multiplying their save crits.
They do not need 4e solo templates nor 5e legendary as Pf2e attack and damage are higher than the level equivalent player. The other editions need those things because the math is not capable of doing it on its own.
Higher levels also get more abilities than lower levels - this is why the elite template adds +2 rather than +1 for a level - to overcompensate for lacking abilities.
So you can play bosses in whatever play-style you prefer - as solo serial killers, controllers shutting down the party so you can play with them like a cat while you monologue your feelings, or add lackeys and hazards in their lair to get that legendary feeling.
Look at orcs, you got the brute, warrior, and chief. The brute is the lackey in shoddy armor without AoO. The chief is the controller as it has the battle cry so it can stand back, and when the time comes it can destroy the party as its attack and saves are higher than the warrior. Check out the gamemastery monster build guide they prereleased, all of those 4e monster roles are still there they are just hidden so players do not freak out about MMO math.
I'm still largely amazed that Zweihander is as good a system as it actually is if you can look past all the ahem homages (which are easily the worst part of the book along with incorporating in jokes that aren't the small but vicious dog).
Homages? I'm assuming this is some sort of euphemism?
I'm still largely amazed that Zweihander is as good a system as it actually is if you can look past all the ahem homages (which are easily the worst part of the book along with incorporating in jokes that aren't the small but vicious dog).
Homages? I'm assuming this is some sort of euphemism?
Sort of. It's more the fact that if we're being honest/vaguely observant, Zweihander is more or less Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay with the serial numbers filed off in terms of fluff and its general mechanics (along with a few other things that had their serial numbers filed off like Hexers which are not at all like Witchers citizen, move along).
I think the fact that pf2 'bosses' work well as a natural function of its rules rather than a gimmick on certain creatures is a strength of the system not a weakness. I always hate how metagamey the solo and legendary rules are as a player.
Bosses multiply their critical success range whilst forcing players to multiple their critical failure range - this is what the +level stats and critical range math accomplishes.
So +level gives multiplied crits so they can destroy the party solo, (crits for spells and weapons double all damage not just die, and there are critical weapon effects and critical ability feats on top of that) as they cannot be shutdown with the +level also multiplying their save crits.
They do not need 4e solo templates nor 5e legendary as Pf2e attack and damage are higher than the level equivalent player. The other editions need those things because the math is not capable of doing it on its own.
The issue, from my perspective, is that PF2 monsters can essentially be simplified into one number: level. A boss is dangerous because it is X levels "taller" than the PCs. But in 4e, the monster's danger is measured in two dimensions - not just level, but also minion/regular/elite/solo. A solo is not necessarily "taller", but it is "wider".
For example, let's say you want a moderate-threat encounter. You could either use four level-2 monsters, or one level+2 monster as a "mini-boss". I'm sure that the math checks out so that the two will use up approximately equal resources from the party on average, but the mini-boss will (a) have much higher variance because it will be taking fewer actions with much higher potential impact, and (b) be much more likely to take out any one PC, because it automatically "focus-fires".
In 4e, the equivalent choice would be between 4 level+0 regular monsters, or one level+0 solo. Again, assuming the math checks out, the two should consume approximately equal resources, but unlike the PF2 version the solo doesn't have as high variance, because as a solo it is more likely to do things that impact multiple opponents. For example, a beholder will be blasting everyone around it with eye-beams, but it won't blast a single character with all of them. A dragon's breath weapon or special moves will hit 2-4 PCs depending on positioning, but it won't annihilate a single character.
The higher variance of PF2 boss fights also means that the point where you realize that this dude is too much for you is often the point where the tank goes down to two lucky crits in a row. This is an issue because you now have a fallen ally you might not want to leave behind.
Those types of monsters exist in the bestiary though, it is just that for the average creature it doesn't make sense from a template standpoint. It just requires the GM to know what they are doing.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
krazmuze wrote:
Bosses multiply their critical success range whilst forcing players to multiple their critical failure range - this is what the +level stats and critical range math accomplishes.
So +level gives multiplied crits so they can destroy the party solo, (crits for spells and weapons double all damage not just die, and there are critical weapon effects and critical ability feats on top of that) as they cannot be shutdown with the +level also multiplying their save crits.
They do not need 4e solo templates nor 5e legendary as Pf2e attack and damage are higher than the level equivalent player. The other editions need those things because the math is not capable of doing it on its own.
The issue, from my perspective, is that PF2 monsters can essentially be simplified into one number: level. A boss is dangerous because it is X levels "taller" than the PCs. But in 4e, the monster's danger is measured in two dimensions - not just level, but also minion/regular/elite/solo. A solo is not necessarily "taller", but it is "wider".
For example, let's say you want a moderate-threat encounter. You could either use four level-2 monsters, or one level+2 monster as a "mini-boss". I'm sure that the math checks out so that the two will use up approximately equal resources from the party on average, but the mini-boss will (a) have much higher variance because it will be taking fewer actions with much higher potential impact, and (b) be much more likely to take out any one PC, because it automatically "focus-fires".
In 4e, the equivalent choice would be between 4 level+0 regular monsters, or one level+0 solo. Again, assuming the math checks out, the two should consume approximately equal resources, but unlike the PF2 version the solo doesn't have as high variance, because as a solo it is more likely to do things that impact multiple opponents. For example, a beholder will be blasting everyone around it with eye-beams, but it won't blast a single character with all of them. A dragon's...
But the PF2e boss has higher stats which significantly multiplies critical successes, and since criticals double damage including the constant damage they have a high floor (even less variance if you use the dual roll rather than doubled result method)
It is the lower level mob that will suffer from variance, again because of the critical range - this time on the failure side. And you can focus fire the squad or not, that has nothing to do with level and is just a tactic.
Your analysis is based on math balance of other editions that does not have critical ranges. Solos in 4e is because they do not have enough math to kill the party otherwise. Legendaries in 5e need extra resistance, attacks, and lair actions because they do not have enough math to kill the party otherwise.
Yes it is entirely possible for a boss to takedown, then kill the dying. It makes sense for the evils BBEG that knows the party cleric will go around and bounce everybody up, or the natural beast that just wants to finish dinner. But that is not how the boss has to always work, spread it around is also possible, you can be more chaotic when you have multiple attacks, abilities, and reactions. There are weapon traits and feats that are even intended for spreading the damage around like sweep or wing thrash or double shot.
The pf2e boss can be a serial killer or be making it rain everywhere. Either way it is played the +4 boss is going to be able to kill the party in a handful of rounds.
Those types of monsters exist in the bestiary though, it is just that for the average creature it doesn't make sense from a template standpoint. It just requires the GM to know what they are doing.
If PF2 went that way, these would be traits.
And [Incapacitation] may instead only interact with [Solo] creatures, for example.
I would say pf2 monsters are just naturally wider than 5e and 1e monsters anyway. The nature of their unique activities means their capabilities are far more varied than just their numbers. I gave the above example of two "bosses" from my campaign a sniper and a military police captain.
The Snipers actions led to a mobile cover to cover fight with a cat and mouse game of stealth and fight in which who was the cat and who was the mouse is a shifting proposition.
The MP required the team to help each other break out of grapples lest they be manacled and rendered useless regardless of their HP.
These differences came about with only two factors, a skill swap (stealth to athletics) and an action change (run away reaction when caught to quick manacle open) and more importantly when my character's level up and possibly get confronted by the MP they arent going to be wondering why she operates on completely different rules now that she has brought a few sergeants with her.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
graytusk the hunter in plaguestone has doubleshot and she is just a low-threat boss (solo by tactics), which instead of 0/-4 MAP can double action attack two targets with -2/-2 MAP. Extremely effective as party had to take prone cover and shield to not get hit- but that accomplished the goal of preventing both heroes from making a dash for it and shooting back. It was too far to get there in one round so soon as they stayed up to get all their hits in they was going to get hit worse (because low-threat despite same level is more powerful than you). She ended up downing both of them eventually and I had to have her go to bed just so they could recover and heal (because replacement parties in last chapter just sucks) even though I could have finished them off with the 100 arrows she had. It made for a terrifying sniper scene.
Then later once you get inside there was the Amalgam solo mini-boss before you get to the real boss. It had four appendages to four four strikes, using the double action 'too many limbs' ability, of which any one target can only be hit twice. All of them are at MAP -2. That thing was even nastier as it was lvl+1, all the mental magics was useless against it because of its many minds.
So there is no need for a solo template, if you want a thing to represent multiple things and not focus fire - that is why there are pages of monster abilities in the bestiary to get it to do what you want, and if that is not good enough the gamemastery will tell you how to make your own. You just need to stay within the guideline for overall level damage.
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
I almost forgot about raging Lord Nar who with a greatclub 'shove' sent the alchemist sailing into left field over the cliff into the orc horde so she was 'dead' before she landed, that 'stride' built into the 'shove' brought him into the clerics melee but he missed the cleric only to leave her dying on the greatclub 'backswing'. The cleric got a sniped heal from the druid to get up, grab her symbol, and ran away only to learn there was 'no escape' which was the bosses move and attack reaction as she got put back down dead.
Two PC 'killed' in a single turn by a single boss...solo. If the other two had been there to back up the cleric in melee, they surely would have died too as that combo gave him two free strides, for crazy mobility for something doing raging criticals at 38max damage (at lvl3) But they was busy getting killed by Greytusk on the other cliff.
The weapon shove also improved his action economy, as without the trait he would have to free hand then regrip interact. So technically in one turn it was 1 shove (1 regrip), 1 move, 1 miss, 1 hit, 1 move, 1 hit .
Which is why he could 'kill' two PC solo in one turn he essentially got two turns in one. And could have done it again on the remaining two.
Man, reading the last dozen or so posts really reminded me how much I hate the term ‘boss’ when used in this way! It drives me absolutely bat crap crazy!
OK, sorry, mini rant over - back to the thread ...
But the PF2e boss has higher stats which significantly multiplies critical successes, and since criticals double damage including the constant damage they have a high floor (even less variance if you use the dual roll rather than doubled result method)
It is the lower level mob that will suffer from variance, again because of the critical range - this time on the failure side. And you can focus fire the squad or not, that has nothing to do with level and is just a tactic.
Your analysis is based on math balance of other editions that does not have critical ranges. Solos in 4e is because they do not have enough math to kill the party otherwise. Legendaries in 5e need extra resistance, attacks, and lair actions because they do not have enough math to kill the party otherwise.
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that PF2 bosses aren't dangerous enough. I'm arguing that they are too dangerous to whoever happens to be in their way. Let me take an example from Hellknight Hill - I'll put it in spoilers (and since I haven't played part 2+, it'd be nice if people didn't spoil those).
Spoiler:
Near the end of the adventure, there is a Greater Barghest the party has to fight. At this point, we were 4th level, so those of us with good AC had an AC of 21 or 22. The barghest attacks at +17 for 2d10+10 (with enlarge) or 2d8+10 on an agile attack. It is also Huge with a 15-foot reach, as well as Attack of Opportunity.
There's a pretty good chance that this monster will hit three times for an average of 59 points, or crit once and hit once for 61 points. Those are not the most likely results, but they're pretty likely (three hits-or-crits is about 20% chance, and an initial crit followed by at least one more hit is also about 20% - these numbers should not be added together because some scenarios fall into both). At 4th level, a front-liner will likely have 55-60 hp. Even if this does not take down the poor target, a greater barghest is pretty smart, and can position itself so the opponent either needs to Step twice to get close, or eat an AoO.
Had the barghest been designed as a 4e-style boss it would likely had had a lower AC but more hit points (because hitting twice as often and wearing down a bigger hit point number is more fun than missing), lower saves but some ability to shake off conditions, and perhaps a "sweep"-style attack that would let it hit 2-3 opponents at full attack bonus (dealing more overall damage but less to one particular PC).
More numerous low-level monsters, on the other hand, have less variance because they make more rolls. If the encounter had instead been against three normal barghests, the chance of all three attacks from any one barghest hitting would have been about 5%, and the chance of three of them hitting with all three attacks would have been about 1 in 10,000. In addition, it is likely that the three barghests would not have ganged up on a single PC, but instead spread out so maybe there'd be two on the primary front-liner and one on a slightly softer target (like a warpriest or a rogue).
Oh, hey! This guy has gotten a TON of chatter, especially when it comes to approaching combat in 2e. It's not that "boss" encounters are too dangerous, but rather that the approach to them have generally been with the same mind set of PF1, 5e, or even lower-level combat.
As some people are finding out in the Spoiler-filled AoA boards, parties are starting to adapt to 2e a bit more between book 1 and book 2. This encounter in particular is a fun teaching moment! It you go toe-to-toe with a Severe solo encounter, you won't come out ahead!
I'd link you to some threads, but they are spoiler heavy. Instead, I'll quote some people (myself included, sorry)!
Ruzza wrote:
While the two encounters would have the same XP budget, it also assumes that PCs will be using appropriate tactics for those encounters. If your strategy is going in swinging, then a number of at-level to level -1 enemies shouldn't feel noticeably different. They wear you down through their overwhelming number of actions.
However, when taking on single creatures, they aren't as difficult if you approach them differently. Keep in mind that a higher level enemy can go for second or even third attacks since it has the accuracy for it, while their stats make up for their low action economy. The PCs, instead, have to use their actions to the fullest, making sure that each one counts. Spells like Fear, Ray of Enfeeblement, or Slow all have powerful effects even on a successful save. Once Saving Throws or AC are lowered, having martials do things other than "third action Strike" becomes much more important: Trip, Demoralize, Grappling.
Once the battles start being weighed as "number of useful actions on either side," things start to get closer to parity. Just like if a large number of weaker creatures to gang up on you to make the most of their action economy, you're in trouble if you allow a single creature to use all of it's actions to the most if it's effectiveness.
KrispyXIV wrote:
I'm currently running Age of Ashes for two parties concurrently, and the difficulty issues you've noted are accurate. Single higher level foes tend to be significantly scarier than groups.
That said, another thing I noted was that the party I assumed would be more fragile in combat, a two-handed fighter, an alchemist, a champion and a bard is MUCH better able to cope with higher level foes than my party with a barbarian, champion, archer fighter, sorcerer, and druid.
I initially assumed more combatants would be superior in combat, the but the reality is that numbers count less than the first parties ability to Synergize in combat. Bonuses and penalties on the enemy count for a LOT when getting your combat numbers to be more favorable than needing a high number to hit... You can pretty easily swing the numbers by at least 4 without needing a failed save (Frightened 1, Inspire Courage for 1, Flat Footed for 2), which increases the entire parties damage output by a LOT. Not taking long-shot swings and instead using the Aid action can push that even higher.
Swinging the math on a higher level target by 6 points will make them feel much more manageable.
Don't underestimate 'minor' effects either, which have their effect 'multiplied' against a more difficult enemy. A boss monster still only has 3 actions, so slowed 1 on a successful save against a Slow spell is still plenty crippling, and Concealment (see Mistform elixirs) have a bigger payout when they eat an attack that may have hit on a 2.
I've finished book 3 with one group and will be soon with the other, and I can say that as they've learned how to manage the obstacles associated with a higher level foe, these encounters have grown more manageable.
My bard-less party has a little bit harder time, but they've been adopting strategies (like aiding) to help them improve their odds of hitting on their main attacks, instead of wasting actions on things like a Strike at -10.
Gorbacz wrote:
PF1 tactics don't work in PF2. In PF1, single higher level opponents were usually laughably easy, as action economy advantage meant that the PCs could just Rodney King the boss in 2-3 rounds.
Not so in PF2. As mentioned above, the action economy is the key. Depriving opponents of actions by means of debuffs, slowing them down and taking advantage of superior speed, swapping out wounded melee combatants for fresh ones (made easier by the general lack of AoOs) are all things seldom used in PF1 but necessary in PF2.
The game did get tougher and more tactical with the edition change, but I see it as a good thing since a moderately optimized PF1 party could just roflbbqstomp a single enemy BBEG rendering the classic "a group of heroes against in a desperate fight against a single powerful enemy" trope pretty much impossible to pull off.
Generally, opponents don't need to "go wide" or have special templates assigned to them like 4e or 5e have done. The way that the game was designed was for characters to approach these "boss" encounters tactically. At higher levels, the creature that menaced you hasn't changed, but the way you interact with the creature has. It's a perspective shift.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
All this talk about bosses has been reminding me how much I want to try running a boss that uses the alien ruler mechanic from X-Com 2 (in short: the boss takes one action with no MAP after each party member's turn) and see how that works out...
All this talk about bosses has been reminding me how much I want to try running a boss that uses the alien ruler mechanic from X-Com 2 (in short: the boss takes one action with no MAP after each party member's turn) and see how that works out...
I'd imagine poorly. Alien Rulers were an exercise in pure frustration that can and did drive nearly everyone in existence to cheese them out with free action, DoT, and LoS abuse. Then again that might just be the Xcom 2 chassis at play where big beefy monsters with heavy damage, disables, and auto hits against squishy humans isn't the most fun especially when you're on a mission timer...
Pathfinder Adventure, Lost Omens, Maps, Pathfinder Accessories, PF Special Edition Subscriber
Staffan Johansson wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding me. I'm not arguing that PF2 bosses aren't dangerous enough. I'm arguing that they are too dangerous to whoever happens to be in their way. Let me take an example from Hellknight Hill - I'll put it in spoilers (and since I haven't played part 2+, it'd be nice if people didn't spoil those).
** spoiler omitted **...
I will spoiler free paraphrase to make my point, "give the boss weaker saves and less AC so the players can hit it" - this is not up to the bestiary. It is up to the players to use those tactics besides hitting to bring the monster down to their level so that they can hit it - there are a lot of skill tactics and spells and pots that can be used. This is the essence of successfully defeating PF2e solo bosses, and it makes for much more engaging fun dynamic teamwork when you brought something down that is a serial killer.
You also completely ignored that my last few examples all demonstrated that existing bosses in actual play all had things that improve their action economy against multiple opponents - so if the GM wants to run them wide rather than focused (or tall) they can. The gamemastery guide even suggest that depending on the role that is envisioned for the monster that part of the monster design is stacking on the abilities that improve action economy so that they can go wide. Just beware that going to far into that will change their level.
Yes the Plaguestone party should have 'died' (GM grace ignored the sleeping bodies that recovered with hero points) but that was a combo of 5e thinking paired with an overly severe adventure not following encounter XP guidelines. Age of Ashes has been much much better much less chapter one difficulty so they have learned over time how to get the teamwork synergy happening (with a much squishier party - not a single martial!) with only near TPK being because I thought they was doing so well and getting cocky they need to pay consequences - and I learned that extreme means what it says.
ANyways The entire point of the ability to focus fire all of its hits and kill a player is that they CAN do that. This is not possible in other editions by design, the boss monsters are made weaker. It is because GM CAN do it that the players need to come up with a tactical plan that prevents them from doing that - because that WILL just be serial murder otherwise.
If players just think they should be able to hit/hit/hit because that is what worked in other editions, yes they will very quickly die. .
While I think the game has a strong foundation, the release feels rushed. At onset some characters could not carry even starting gear. For me and our group to be a long term consumer I would like to see:
Fix multiclassing. Feat taxes make it unusable for most classes. They built an interchangeable, modular feat system, why make it so hard?
Some classes have far too many dead skills. As a rogue I was at a loss for picking 2nd and 4th level rogue feats. No one wants to play for months, level, and be disappointed they don’t have even 1 solid feat.
Some classes have super feats that will always be taken, making builds vanilla instead of creating variety
Two weapon fighting is bad. Why not allow it to be on par with duelist and two-handed?
Heavy incorporation of AOO mechanic in actions and abilities, with most creatures not having it. Seems a poor carry over.
My worst problems are things that make no sense. Example: Rogue takes the weapon proficiency feat, but then cant advance those weapons as part of their class? What does the 4th level poison feat even do? Elaborate crafting system that feels like a complete waste RAW. There’s a lot more.
I am not surprised sales numbers are good, geeks like to buy books (me included). The longevity of the success will be measured in how Paizo refines what they have, not just pushing more content. I want some fixes.
While I think the game has a strong foundation, the release feels rushed. At onset some characters could not carry even starting gear. For me and our group to be a long term consumer I would like to see:
Fix multiclassing. Feat taxes make it unusable for most classes. They built an interchangeable, modular feat system, why make it so hard?
Some classes have far too many dead skills. As a rogue I was at a loss for picking 2nd and 4th level rogue feats. No one wants to play for months, level, and be disappointed they don’t have even 1 solid feat.
Some classes have super feats that will always be taken, making builds vanilla instead of creating variety
Two weapon fighting is bad. Why not allow it to be on par with duelist and two-handed?
Heavy incorporation of AOO mechanic in actions and abilities, with most creatures not having it. Seems a poor carry over.
My worst problems are things that make no sense. Example: Rogue takes the weapon proficiency feat, but then cant advance those weapons as part of their class? What does the 4th level poison feat even do? Elaborate crafting system that feels like a complete waste RAW. There’s a lot more.
I am not surprised sales numbers are good, geeks like to buy books (me included). The longevity of the success will be measured in how Paizo refines what they have, not just pushing more content. I want some fixes.
It doesn't sound like you're describing a rushed game to me. It sounds like you're describing a game that's gone in a fundamentally different direction than you would have liked.
I wouldn't hold your breath on much of that being "fixed" as I doubt the designers share your view that they are broken (errors like starting gear weight and so on are being addressed, but I haven't heard any chatter from the designers about rebalancing the power of different classes feats, removing the AOO mechanic from abilities or re-doing multiclassing).
It seems more likely to me that they were aiming for something you don't want rather than that they were trying to design the game you consider to be ideal but were in too much of a hurry.
Ultimately, I can understand people holding off until they see the first few rounds of errata or until there's some favored option not yet available that becomes workable in a future splatbook. I think you're doomed for disappointment (or an extremely long wait) if you're holding off until they revise the fundamental philosophies underpinning the game.
Fix multiclassing. Feat taxes make it unusable for most classes. They built an interchangeable, modular feat system, why make it so hard?
From chatter heard from the devs and various means of forums multiclassing is sitting at a nice spot right for the most part and well liked. And useable.
Quote:
Heavy incorporation of AOO mechanic in actions and abilities, with most creatures not having it. Seems a poor carry over.
???
Quote:
My worst problems are things that make no sense. Example: Rogue takes the weapon proficiency feat, but then cant advance those weapons as part of their class?
They can as Archetypes though, which seems to be what those were leading into, such as Hellknight and Aldori Swordlord.
Quote:
What does the 4th level poison feat even do?
Poison Weapon? It reads pretty plainly to me, what issue are you having with it?
These boards are a bit like our political system. Some see glaring deficiencies while others see a well oiled machine. If the game plays perfectly for you that’s a wonderful thing. From my groups perspective, we are on the fence with using it as is.
Pathfinder Rulebook, Starfinder Roleplaying Game Subscriber
Isthisnametaken? wrote:
These boards are a bit like our political system. Some see glaring deficiencies while others see a well oiled machine. If the game plays perfectly for you that’s a wonderful thing. From my groups perspective, we are on the fence with using it as is.
Please don’t liken this standard edition war to this dangerous partisan morass that feels poised to test the very fabric of governance.
It does two things beyond what anyone can do with poisons.
1) it gives you a small number of free poisons each day, like being an alchemist-lite.
2) it reduces the number of actions typically needed to poison a weapon. Without the feat, you will typically need to Interact to draw out a poison vial and then Interact again to apply the poison to the weapon. Poison Weapon lets you combine the two into one action for better action economy.
These boards are a bit like our political system. Some see glaring deficiencies while others see a well oiled machine. If the game plays perfectly for you that’s a wonderful thing. From my groups perspective, we are on the fence with using it as is.
The problem is your approach. You're listing things as objective facts, when they are from your point of view.
"Fix multiclassing. Feat taxes make it unusable for most classes. They built an interchangeable, modular feat system, why make it so hard?"
This statement can't be true when other people have said the opposite. Instead you can say,
"My table doesn't like multiclassing. It doesn't feel like it's doing what it's intended to do. We feel that way because..."
So if you feel like the game doesn't meet your standards, that's fine. Telling other people that the game doesn't meet any standards is dragging conversation down to divisiveness.
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game Superscriber; Pathfinder Starfinder Adventure Path, Starfinder Roleplaying Game, Starfinder Society Subscriber
Tarik Blackhands wrote:
MaxAstro wrote:
All this talk about bosses has been reminding me how much I want to try running a boss that uses the alien ruler mechanic from X-Com 2 (in short: the boss takes one action with no MAP after each party member's turn) and see how that works out...
I'd imagine poorly. Alien Rulers were an exercise in pure frustration that can and did drive nearly everyone in existence to cheese them out with free action, DoT, and LoS abuse. Then again that might just be the Xcom 2 chassis at play where big beefy monsters with heavy damage, disables, and auto hits against squishy humans isn't the most fun especially when you're on a mission timer...
Oh, trust me, I am well familiar with the pitfalls of the original system (side note: There is a mod that makes Ruler Reactions only trigger on offensive actions, instead of all actions - it makes the rulers a LOT less frustrating).
And certainly I wouldn't go with a full 1-to-1 action economy; that would be messy and slow.
But I suspect that a boss that gets one single action at the end of each player's turn, instead of having its own 3-action turn, would be a credible but not overwhelming threat, and would force the players to think on their feet without putting too much stress on them.
Best of all, it automatically scales the encounter to the number of players, which is nice for me because my group fluctuates from 4-6 week to week. To borrow the terminology used above, it makes the boss "wider" instead of "taller".
It does require a particular kind of monster, though, since obviously monsters that rely on multi-action activities wouldn't work with this system.
