| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hi guys, hope you're having great holidays full of epic quests in the Age of Lost Omens (or elsewhere).
TL;DR: some encounters are almost easy, some are very tough, and 1 boss is harder than a group of equal-budget, lower level creatures - feature or bug?
I'm running Age of Ashes and I'm not sure I get something in the encounter structure, so I'd like a hand to make heads or tails of this particular problem.
If you're playing AoA and you haven't finished part 2 yet, please stop reading, I don't want to spoil you. If you're *running* it, please *keep reading*. If you're running something else, same as above - I need as many points of view as possible to understand how this is working.
So, first off I come from D&D 5e, I ran Tyranny of Dragons and I found that most combats, even against bosses, were a bit on the easy side for my group, perhaps a peculiarity of the class composition, perhaps too generous with magic items, not important right now.
Now, with AoA and PF2, we're having a peculiar dynamic. Yesterday my 8th level group was exploring the Fortress of Sorrow in the Mwangi Jungle (Cult of Cinder), they handily killed the 2 dragonspawn with the same stats as Racharak (2 creatures at the same level as the party) and proceeded onwards.
Then they met Izzolith. The elite Nessian Warhound. They didn't really try to negotiate effectively, it sped past an opportunity attack from the fighter and an Opportune Backstab from the rogue and proceeded to vomit fire on our casters, hurting them quite badly. The druid tried to quench it with an Hydraulic Torrent but only did half damage, then proceeded to take cover behind the melees. Things started turning for the better and in the end, with some bad bites and burns to show for it, the party managed to kill the hellhound, but we noticed some quirks.
An elite Nessian Warhound is a 10th level (level+2) creature. It has AC30, which means an 8th level rogue is hard-pressed to hit it, and a fighter isn't all that better. Its saves allow it to easily take half damage from many spells and in general succeed against the party's magic and effects. It has 170 hp! Its attack is a +23, which means it can only miss the wizard on a 1 and even against the fighter it needs something like a 6 or 7 (correct me if I'm wrong, typical 8th level free hand fighter with +1 plate). Same math applies to the rogue.
We thought it was quite overpowered. They killed it alright, but, just to compare, the party later met a group of cultists, same difficulty (8 Moderate) and same xp budget (80), and it was almost a joke dispatching them.
Izzolith wasn't. At all. It was hard to hit, it hit often and hard... my druid was wondering also why casters don't have items adding bonuses to their spell attack and DCs, since melees do. Their spells aren't endless, and with such a being they're easily wasted, or at least only partially effective (earlier on, against the vrock at the strip mine, she had cast Searing Light 4 times without hitting once).
One thing I wanna know is if you're meeting similar dynamics in other campaigns and adventures, i.e., is it normal that some encounters are so tough? No one went unconscious... barely. In the end they were awesome and killed the beast, but we were all panicking. Is this kind of very difficult encounter an intended event to send adrenaline through your veins and make you sweat a bit once in a while? If so, why is it an 80xp budget encounter same as 3 crappy cultists that went down dealing more or less 20 hp against the whole party? That is weird... or is it?
As I jokingly put it to my friends, I wanna ask you if this nice dose of sadism is part and parcel of the rules or it it's something peculiar to, say, AoA. It's not the first tough monster we meet in the campaign - others were actually even tougher (but they were mostly intended as the only encounter in 1 day so the party was supposed to wail on them with everything... although the vrock was really really tough *and* part of a larger location full of nice people).
In general though, for the same xp budget, 1 creature is a holy scourge, while 2 or more become much easier to put down. Isn't it weird? Maybe the math here is wrong and needs to be erratad, by any chance? Maybe it's a situational, quirky result of bad rolls, green players and little chance of crafting magic items? Has it happened to you? I've heard Fall of Plaguestone isn't exactly a walk in the park either.
So is this working as intended, feature not bug... or perhaps this adventure isn't perfectly balanced? Should I ask a dev? Perhaps Mark Seifter still answers questions? What's your impression?
And thank you everyone for reading this far, btw ;)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going UP level is hugely punishing in PF2 where in 5e it means next to nothing barring a couple exceptions.
With out doing real math you could easily look at PF2 scaling as +/- 10% combat effectiveness, where for each level of difference, penalize the underdog and award the favourite.
Level -1 or lower are filler, no real threat on their own
Equal Level are interesting fights which may take some condideration.
Level +1 is going to give them a run for it
Level +2 should be limited to Boss level fights
Level +3 or higher is an Endcap fight, where the party goes in prepared and knowing EXACTLY what they're doing and party members still get killed.
I ran into this immediately after converting my current campaign over to PF2. I wound up completely scrapping planned encounters and changing the dynamics of fights on the fly just to avoid TPKs.
With my players there seems to be a lack of interest in creating/obtaining their own specific magical gear/buffs. They just aren't used to the idea of being that proactive since they mostly only know 5e and being locked into 5e modules at that. This makes some encounters even more difficult since they haven't taken gear options that I think the game assumes they have.
I'm sure some of the encounter issues in the first printed adventures fall into the same learning curve.
(I locked down a party of 5 9th level characters with a single 10th level necromancer on a nightmare this weekend. Nearly taking out 2 of them even after they nuked the nightmare in 2 rounds)
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There are several issues. I think part of the problem is that all the modules from AoA were written even before the core books were finalized. Maybe the writers just assumed casters would have some way to boost their spell attacks and DCs as they did back in 1e. Maybe, because of the rules new set they are really just spitballing the difficulty and have underestimated the "1 boss monster" encounters. I would take the adventure, and PF2e in general, as still a work in progress that even the creators don't know perfectly yet and you should be willing to adjust the difficulty of some encounters. That could be to make some easier (reduce a monster's hit points, saving throws, or AC), or increase them for others. If the party is mopping the floor with some cultists, have 1 or 2 of them step forward (or suddenly appear) as the "Cult Enforcers" with better stats than the others. It's harder to have a character suddenly appear who helps the PCs, though that is 1 choice, but I prefer fudging the numbers of the monster stats if necessary so the PCs can win themselves. Heck, it could just be as easy as when the next PC gets in a good blow, announce that the tough monster is looking like he is on his last legs. or just say that that blow was enough and he drops unconscious and bleeding.
Remember, it is that you are running, Paizo just gave a lot of suggestions in a printed form to help you run it. Make the changes you need to make it fun and interesting!
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Solo monsters of higher level than the PCs are no joke. Don't treat them as one or you'll have a TPK. Whether that's "too tough" or not is probably a personal perspective question, but it's the case regardless.
That said, your PCs might be a bit weak if they are having trouble hitting AC 30 at 8th level. The rogue should, I presume, have a total attack bonus of 4 (Dex) + 12 (proficiency) + 1 (weapon) = +17, and almost certainly should also be hitting the monster's flat-footed AC for the equivalent of another +2. The above is true for the fighter, but with another +2. That's at least a 50/50 shot on the first attack each round, and that's not counting any other possible buffs your PCs might have available. It's no picnic, to be sure, but if the PCs aren't hitting those benchmarks, there might be a separate issue to look at.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Wow guys, thank you, these are all very illuminating answers. Let's see.
Levi - so it's not a problem only we are having, the encounters are actually much more punishing than supposedly "tough fights" in 5e... oh and yeah, they haven't been able to craft their gear for awhile due to being in a jungle a lot of the time, with only Akrivel as a settlement for their downtime... I need to impress upon them the importance of the right gear in this case.
Samurai - I didn't know the rules were still in a state of flux while the AP was written... as you say it could also be that they were trying out difficulties without knowing for sure how that would play out... I was thinking I could "cheat" a little in favor of the party from time to time, so yeah, your suggestions make plenty of sense - I probably will! ^___^
Shisumo - okay, solo monsters are to be treated with the utmost caution, gotta tell my group... I am reading your calculations for the attack bonus and actually it seems to me they line up with our characters' stats - I do think though that the rogue wasn't able to flat-foot Izzolith and other monsters right from the start and that penalized him quite a bit in all those cases. I'm going over the rogue's feats lately and I'm working with the player, who's the greenest of us all, to see if we can make him more efficient and deadly. One thing we don't get is why casters can't have that item bonus to their spell attack, but for spells that impose a save the matter is more balanced, and if they judge the best save to attack with their spell they have an advantage, even.
Ruzza - so a boss' attack is so high to help it with the action economy! We hadn't thought of that at all... and debuffs, yeah, of course they always try to make the enemy flat-footed so our rogue can sneak attack, but we *are* actually not giving the right weight to debuffs in my opinion. I should really impress upon my guys that they are very, very useful against tough customers and to take some and use them when needed, or at least to try the right combat maneuvers to obtain similar effects.
Thank you guys, this was really eye-opening - I'm telling my players what you explained. I think I'll try to ask Mark his take anyways because they were very interested in his answer, but that's more to make them happy than anything. I think I understand how things work now.
Thank you again ❤
(And I'm not going anywhere - if you want to correct my takes, or add something, or someone else has their own insights, please do tell! This is all really interesting and useful stuff!).
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I didn't know the rules were still in a state of flux while the AP was written... as you say it could also be that they were trying out difficulties without knowing for sure how that would play out...
It's a fairly common problem. The first full-length published adventure for D&D 5e features an encounter with four Assassins. The PCs are about level 4, and during the editing process the standard Assassin became a CR8 enemy.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
(earlier on, against the vrock at the strip mine, she had cast Searing Light 4 times without hitting once).
You're using hero points, right?
Because of the added difficulty of the PF2 encounters I just pass out 2 at the start of the session and we've houseruled them so that the re-roll adds 10 if it's under 11.
I didn't know the rules were still in a state of flux while the AP was written... as you say it could also be that they were trying out difficulties without knowing for sure how that would play out...It's a fairly common problem. The first full-length published adventure for D&D 5e features an encounter with four Assassins. The PCs are about level 4, and during the editing process the standard Assassin became a CR8 enemy.
I remember that - when I saw it I started scouring forums and sites to try to understand what to do... dammit, 4 assassins! XD
There was another tough encounter, the one with the blue half-dragon and his 2 barbarian lackeys - one group was saved by the skin of their teeth by the intervention of a few bow-wielding mercenaries, otherwise... hellooo, TPK!
(earlier on, against the vrock at the strip mine, she had cast Searing Light 4 times without hitting once).You're using hero points, right?
Because of the added difficulty of the PF2 encounters I just pass out 2 at the start of the session and we've houseruled them so that the re-roll adds 10 if it's under 11.
Of course I'm using hero points (she managed to miss even with those... that night the dice were adamantly trying to kill them).
Uh, giving more hero points?... And making them work as in Mutants & Masterminds?...
I'm... very very disturbed by house rules so out of the blue (I don't know, could be a medical condition). I'm ready to cheat to get the narrative where I want, or to save the pcs' bacon, but changing *the rules* of a game has always been something I'm very hesitant to do for some reason. *Official* options are a whole different matter, but otherwise... eh.
Thank you for the advice, Ice Titan, but I couldn't bring myself to do so in these circumstances. Maybe if something changes.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, what I do (and honestly, what I’ve been doing this past 15 years) is to evaluate encounters “in 3d”.
The xp budget is nothing more than the old CR calculation revisited, and basically amounts to 40*sqrt(2)^N xp, with N being level difference. Whether you sum individual values up or learn to calculate in root 2 makes no difference. However, this gives you only the party’s success chances - if the encounter is a wipe or a cakewalk. You need more than this. This only gives you length.
For the height, you want to single out your highest level enemy. That’s the single highest difficulty within the encounter, and will likely be the main source of damage or trouble. Players will face the encounter as a group, but roll against individual creatures, so knowing the peak difficulty of each roll will give you a measure of how difficulty will swing within the fight and of how events will be perceived.
Finally you need width, or the total size of the encounter. 10 low level critters are a danger due to sheer numbers, while a single enemy can get overwhelmed due to action economy. Generally speaking, more than 4 enemies start to become much more threatening than expected every time you add another one.
While I don’t actually calculate the area, I always try to sort of visualise or get a sense of an encounter’s volume/shape based on those three factors. If it’s too skewed, I might face some trouble... sometimes I want it to be, sometimes I don’t, but in any case total xp isn’t by itself a sufficient metric.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, the thing with solo bosses is that's one party packed into one package, which is a better way to think about them. This aspect also means (when not using AoOs) they automatically focus fire (often in the form of a crit!), something actual groups have to work to achieve. Also, you can't "kill a few" to whittle the boss down, but as noted, debuffs are the similar tool in this instance. Apply them ASAP.
I really appreciate the different tactics needed in fighting hordes, thugs, and bosses; or combinations thereof.
And as I often do, I recommend Magic Missiles vs. bosses since much of their defense comes from high AC & Saves.
| 7 people marked this as a favorite. |
One thing that's been mentioned above I want to emphasize is that the game really promotes different tactics depending on the enemy involved.
When fighting groups of enemies, it's really just best to charge in and blow them up as quick as possible, they're easier to hit and every one you kill make the encounter easier for obvious reasons. So you just mow them down as quickly as possible and you're golden.
When fighting single powerful enemies, the emphasis shifts toward managing action economy. The enemy is scary and hits hard, so the more you can do to make it harder for them to pull off their gameplan, the better. Skirmishing and liberal use of battlefield control and buffs/debuffs makes the fight significantly more manageable.
From my experience with the game, a lot of groups just approach the whole game from the first perspective and end up cruising through fights where raw damage counts and struggling against fights where the enemy can soak that DPR and hit back even harder.
|
| 8 people marked this as a favorite. |
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.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is actually my favorite part of the PF2 system and what fundamentally won me over to the +level bonus to proficiency. I love how dangerous higher level encounters are, and how satisfying it can be as a player to barely overcome them at one level, but 2 levels later, you can really feel how much your character has grown when you face them again.
|
|
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is actually my favorite part of the PF2 system and what fundamentally won me over to the +level bonus to proficiency. I love how dangerous higher level encounters are, and how satisfying it can be as a player to barely overcome them at one level, but 2 levels later, you can really feel how much your character has grown when you face them again.
And it's something you'd never notice by just reading the rules. It's only in practice (OK, unless you are a *very* experienced designer) that you notice what the actual impact of +level and new crit range is on play.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is actually my favorite part of the PF2 system and what fundamentally won me over to the +level bonus to proficiency. I love how dangerous higher level encounters are, and how satisfying it can be as a player to barely overcome them at one level, but 2 levels later, you can really feel how much your character has grown when you face them again.
It was the exact same for me. I was very much not into +level proficiency during the playtest - I was essentially planning on houseruling it away. That is, until I realized this was the case.
I'm so enamored with the fact that the level 17 party can just fight a Balor Demon. You don't need to worry that it's going to be a cakewalk, you're not forced to add lame underlings or anything - just the entire party vs a force of evil, chaos and darkness. This simple fact is what will probably keep me playing 2E for a long, long time since it's those moments I live for.
In the end boss fights in PF2 are all about the monsters "unfair" numbers advantage versus the party's "unfair" action economy advantage.
And while the wargamer in me is generally embracing harder battles the roleplayer in me does not like it very much because the harder the fights the more meta gaming will usually be involved.
So instead of: "Wow...what a cool, colourful and close fight versus this freightening big dragon."
"Well, after we debuffed the boss mob DC's 3 times and our sorcerer slowed it every round, the fight - like any single enemy - was pretty manageable."
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
In the end boss fights in PF2 are all about the monsters "unfair" numbers advantage versus the party's "unfair" action economy advantage.
And while the wargamer in me is generally embracing harder battles the roleplayer in me does not like it very much because the harder the fights the more meta gaming will usually be involved.
So instead of: "Wow...what a cool, colourful and close fight versus this freightening big dragon."
"Well, after we debuffed the boss mob DC's 3 times and our sorcerer slowed it every round, the fight - like any single enemy - was pretty manageable."
While I understand this feeling (approaching the game from a very "game" point of view), I'm not sure how much it holds up in actual play.
An anecdote from a game I ran over the holidays: The party enters into a cave and is ambushed by two remorhazes. The group starts buffing the fighter, the monk is moving to get into position... when suddenly the fighter (who ran into melee) is bitten, grappled, and swallowed. The spellcasters are suddenly exposed to the other remozhaz which begins wreaking havoc. The situation changed all of a sudden and it quickly became less about "Plan A" and more about solving the new puzzle put in front of them. The wizard got off a very fortunate Hideous Laughter spell while the fighter tried to claw his way out of the other remorhaz. The dynamic of the battle switched so quickly.
Similarly, that same group encountered a cryohydra (just a little adjustment I made to the Bestiary hydra), and found themselves trying to figure out the best way to approach it between attacks of opportunity, a smaller fighting space, and the ever growing heads. Though a hydra may be cheating, as it's a monster that screams for an interesting way to approach combat.
I, personally, haven't seen my players leaving encounters going, "Yes, our plan - as always - worked. We didn't have to approach that any differently." One of my players compared the difficult encounters to cooperatively solving a puzzle, and I appreciate that. Again, your mileage may vary; especially if you have these feelings already.
Quick Edit: In that same remorhax encounter, the fighter actually gained the broken condition with his weapon. This lead to the wizard proudly saying, "Don't worry, I have Quick Repair AND Master in Crafting!" which was a pretty shocking moment for me. It was great watching this battle unfold as the wizard rushed into melee to fix the fighter's pick.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In the end boss fights in PF2 are all about the monsters "unfair" numbers advantage versus the party's "unfair" action economy advantage.
And while the wargamer in me is generally embracing harder battles the roleplayer in me does not like it very much because the harder the fights the more meta gaming will usually be involved.
So instead of: "Wow...what a cool, colourful and close fight versus this freightening big dragon."
"Well, after we debuffed the boss mob DC's 3 times and our sorcerer slowed it every round, the fight - like any single enemy - was pretty manageable."
Maybe I haven't faced enough of them yet, but I have found, at least with the pre-written adventures, that there have been enough uniqueness to each encounter, as far as terrain and environment to make each boss fight feel pretty different.
|
|
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm pretty sure that in-character conversations of Pathfinder characters are more:
Fighter: Casty boi, got any slow left?
Wizard: No, I'm out of 3rd-level!
Fighter: Damn, Alchemigirl, where you at?
Alchemist: Sticky bomb out in ... two seconds!
than
Fighter: Mage, my friend, hast thou any spells that deprive foes of mobility left?
Wizard: Nay, there be no magic of that magnitude left in my repertoire!
Fighter: Whippersnockers! My fair lady that dabbles in alchemy, can you be of help?
Alchemist: In just a whiff or few I shall have a bomb that will possibly slow the foe a dripple!
We have not encountered many boss fights yet, but the ones we do had were not especially convincing. One included dropping a large boss with reach in melee range (while the cineastics were still on) in a cave were the boss and his reach fit nicely (not completely but space to run was scarce). So we fought with our literal backs against the wall from round one, with all party members constantly being in AoO range and to top that off the boss had the attack power to consistently drop our tank (shield fighter) from 100% to 0% using two to three attacks (or AoO depending if crits were involved) every single round. Fun times.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you guys, I'm reading to my players what you're telling me over Whatsapp and it makes a lot of sense actually.
We've been able to successfully and epically conclude Cult of Cinders (AoA 2) and we're all starting to understand that solo bosses are different than groups of bad guys and they require different tactics.
Your answers have been invaluable in showing us how it works and why it isn't unfair that a +2 level creature is so much more accurate and resilient.
We're also starting to like the way it works and I think it's all a matter of getting used to how it is, as in 99% of life, after all.
Related question for the discussion - has anyone looked at the numbers to determine if there are significant 'jumps' in difficulty that might make certain gaps more dangerous than others?
For example - a level 4 party against a level 7 monster. At level 4, you're missing the bump to expert proficiency that martial classes get at 5 and others add at 7.
I wonder if there are places in progression that are particularly dangerous, like that.
Your caster is sad that he never does double damage on critical fails to clear the barracks.
Critical fails really do exist?! Inconceivable...
(our GM is the godfather of saves and even rolls open; the good thing being in stark contrast he manages to miss a lot of easy-to-hit attack rolls, so theres that)
| 15 people marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you guys, this was really eye-opening - I'm telling my players what you explained. I think I'll try to ask Mark his take anyways because they were very interested in his answer, but that's more to make them happy than anything. I think I understand how things work now.
Our awesome and insightful paizo.com community members beat me to the right answer. As they said, this is how we let you tell a story of your PC's progress vis-a-vis the monsters of the world, with a scary solo boss one day becoming a mook you can fight and beat in large numbers, where the math carefully scales to account for the action economy. This is as opposed to the more typical approach of having certain enemies within their level work differently because they are intended to be a boss, with similar numbers to other monsters of that level but extra actions every turn, ability to negate bad effects, etc. We thought it would increase your flexibility and the sort of narrative and simulationist coherence of the game world to try to do it this way, and it wasn't easy, but I think we succeeded. You have to use different tactics than mook-sweep-up blitzkrieg (which denies the action advantage of groups of mooks) against single enemies, though, leveraging buffs, debuffs, and so on. But the posters in this thread have that covered too! :)
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Our awesome and insightful paizo.com community members beat me to the right answer. As they said, this is how we let you tell a story of your PC's progress vis-a-vis the monsters of the world, with a scary solo boss one day becoming a mook you can fight and beat in large numbers, where the math carefully scales to account for the action economy. This is as opposed to the more typical approach of having certain enemies within their level work differently because they are intended to be a boss, with similar numbers to other monsters of that level but extra actions every turn, ability to negate bad effects, etc. We thought it would increase your flexibility and the sort of narrative and simulationist coherence of the game world to try to do it this way, and it wasn't easy, but I think we succeeded. You have to use different tactics than mook-sweep-up blitzkrieg (which denies the action advantage of groups of mooks) against single enemies, though, leveraging buffs, debuffs, and so on. But the posters in this thread have that covered too! :)
Holy s!*& it's Mark! (Cue fangirl squeal) Hey Mark! I didn't think you were gonna answer anymore and then you surprise me with this... on this thread! XD
Anyways yeah, the posters have been super helpful and now I perfectly understand how the game is supposed to work, and my players are getting there too easily enough, even though since they were used to the other method you mention they took a little longer. This design is certifiably awesome and the more I study the rules of this edition the more I'm lovin' it (which, take note, is great praise for a gamist system from a simulationist player! ;P ).
I'll proceed to read your answer to my group. Holy s@*! you're so awesome!
And yeah, thank you everyone, you've all been great in explaining how it works to this noob here =)