Second Ed vs First Ed.

[Ubertron_X]

Midnightoker wrote:

I mean what's wrong with adjusting on the fly? It's pretty easy to look down see CL 7 against a Party of 4th level characters and go "Hmm... this might be too strong, better take a little mustard off this guy. -1 across the board.

Its probably a problem for a GM that has never GM'ed PF2 before, is as inexperienced with the system as are his players and therefore simply wants to play out of the box...

[The Raven Black]

Deth Braedon wrote:

Midnightoker wrote:

... as a GM sometimes you have to evaluate whether or not you should run everything exactly as written.

at this time, for our group, for our GM, the time needed to run the AP as published is the limits of available diversion time

I tell him to ignore the rest of his real life and focus his time on AP-revising for session preparation yet he keeps balking at that

I wish we all had more time
but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starter

I’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viable

so we are playing ‘straight out of the box’

There are pretty good posts of valuable advice to GMs in the APs' forums.

It is also possible for a GM short on time to post their questions there and directly get adequate answers and feedback.

[Magnus Arcanus]

Magnus Arcanus wrote:

The player who wanted throw in the towel after become confused did NOT in any way want to leave the moment a negative [event] happened to them. That comment is disingenuous.

Magnus Arcanus wrote:

Early in the battle the monk failed his save vs confusion, and the player was ready to quit right there on the spot.

Quote:

Your exact words.

yes, they are, which is why I provided the context to understand why the player was so frustrated. I interpreted comments in this thread to imply the player in question was simply 'leaving at the first moment a negative event happened' to his character, and that the player was being unsporting.

In fact, the player in question showed a lot of patience in my view.

But I am also not going to argue about it. I probably should not have used the word disingenuous, it was more antagonistic than I intended to be.

[Magnus Arcanus]

Midnightoker wrote:

Deth Braedon wrote:

but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starter

I’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viable

so we are playing ‘straight out of the box’

I mean what's wrong with adjusting on the fly? It's pretty easy to look down see CL 7 against a Party of 4th level characters and go "Hmm... this might be too strong, better take a little mustard off this guy. -1 across the board.'

It's not like modifying an encounter takes some huge rework in PF2, almost always "-1 to everything" translates to a CL X - 1 (at least most of the time).

Tough to argue with you there, though at the time I ran the encounter, I was still pretty green to PF2 (as were the players). It is easy to see how bad that encounter can go after the fact. At the time it took place, when you're knee deep in trying to keep a session going, its much easier to lose sight of the big picture.

[RPGnoremac]

Deth Braedon wrote:

at this time, for our group, for our GM, the time needed to run the AP as published is the limits of available diversion time
I tell him to ignore the rest of his real life and focus his time on AP-revising for session preparation yet he keeps balking at that

I wish we all had more time
but given RL commitments, investing the time to pre-vet, then adjust the AP is a non-starter

I’d love to full blown homebrew GM a game for our group
currently not viable

so we are playing ‘straight out of the box’

I do want to say I hear Age of Ashes is the toughest AP for some fights.

My GM was pretty much like this too which 100% gave some players bad impressions IMO. They did not enjoy getting knocked out / crowd controlled on a regular basis.

PF2 makes it super easy to make APs easier though. Just give players a level or two and for the encounters give the XP as written. You could also just give most enemies the "weak template".

But yes I had the same experience with our GM in Extinction Curse where monsters were just trouncing allies and just kept running as written. By level 7+ we played smarter and the game felt so much better. Now that we know better I feel using the above examples at the start of these APs would help everyone's enjoyment at the start.

I even made a thread and pretty much everyone said running APs as written for a new group can feel really bad.

In general tactics are hard to teach. No matter what I say players will run up to giant monsters using 0 defensive actions and get pummeled.

[PossibleCabbage]

Part of this disconnect is that due to power creep over a decade, a party in late PF2 can routinely just destroy opposition with CR that exceeds their levels, particularly when that party is high level.

PF2 recalibrates so that an equal number of participants on two sides all at the same level should have a roughly 50/50 shot at winning. After all, if your PC were to fight a magical duplicate of themselves with all the same gear, that *should* be a 50/50 fight and what level should "magical duplicate of you" be if not "your level"?

[Deth Braedon]

Midnightoker wrote:

"Punching above your weight class" is CL or CL + anything.

CL + 3 is not "punching above your weight class" so much as it is "punching at someone multiple magnitudes stronger than you".
...
You're not going to convince me that CL+3 losing easily is even remotely good for any game, as it devalues the entire purpose of the system.

Quote:

A level 4 party vs. a CL 7 is TPK territory. The game is intentionally designed for that.

Quote:

In PF1, you could easily die to a +3 encounter, I've had it happen plenty. Why is the expectation that you should be trouncing +3 encounters?

let us not debate phrasing, let’s go to the source

The CRB says
- one L+3 is 120 XP
- an 120 XP budget encounter is a Severe threat level
and here is how Severe threat is defined:

“CRB,p489” wrote:

Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat. These encounters are most appropriate for important moments in your story, such as confronting a final boss. Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open.

“the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat”

not my definition, RAW

so yes, I expect to consistently, not ‘easily’, not ‘trouncing’ but consistently defeat L+3 encounters
while having Plan B (disengage) on deck

I think how the CRB defines this is the better baseline for this discussion
so yes, that baseline is
our party of well built characters run by skilled, tactically savvy players can and should “consistently defeat” L+3s

[Deth Braedon]

Rysky wrote:

Nobody is supposed to routinely punch above their weight class aka far exceed what they’re supposed to.

each time I read the CRB, my takeaway is consistently different than this comment

[Rysky]

Read the whole thing you quoted

Core Rulebook wrote:

Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat. These encounters are most appropriate for important moments in your story, such as confronting a final boss. Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open.

The book outright says if you have bad luck and/or don't use good tactics you're kinda screwed.

Deth Braedon wrote:

each time I read the CRB, my takeaway is consistently different than this comment

We're reading two different rulebooks then.

No one is supposed to constantly be doing better on average on average, that makes no sense.

[Deth Braedon]

read the sentence as a whole:
Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat.

then please think of a one-word answer to this question:
what is the frequency with which a “Severe-threat encounter” can be defeated?

if you thought of “consistently”, how do you define “consistently”?
if you thought of a different word, what was it? and how do you define that word?

[The-Magic-Sword]

My experience is that Level+3 creatures (which are a severe encounter for four PCs) are consistently beatable with decent (but NOT necessarily optimal) tactics, regardless of luck (to a point, but chain pulling low rolls, while the enemies get exclusively high rolls, is pretty unlikely.)

The thing about Usain Bolt, is that it takes a certain amount of skill and knowledge to do what he does. You have to breathe right to run good, you have to have your form down even when you're under pressure, you have to know how to pace yourself to finish the race while maximizing speed.

You could step into Usain Bolt's body without his mind and consciousness and you wouldn't be able to leverage his potential, in fact, anyone else who would be put in competition with him normally would likely destroy you.

That's what tactics are about, and its where PF2e succeeds so well, you have to actually formulate and adapt your strategy to draw the most out of a given character or party. This makes the war game combat that stands at the center of this lineage of roleplaying games more than just a chore that gets in the way of the adventure, "will we prevail?" is the dramatic question.

Now, you don't need to, the GM can adjust encounters with very little time investment on their part to make them easier so you don't have to try harder. They can actually handle it with no time investment by making you a level higher than the books says your meant to be with absolutely no additional work.

I'll also point out, that you were at one particular disadvantage... the alchemist is considered the worst class in PF2e, and a big part of the reason is that its a class that wants to try and hit things multiple times in a turn, but has a lower to-hit than every other class in the game that relies on that. Imagine the same rolls, but the Alchemist had an additional +2, that 14 might turns into a hit right? yeah, thats the difference the proficiency makes.

The game's balance is very nearly perfect... with the alchemist as a glaring exception. Even then some people defend it as usable, so I guess it isn't as bad as it could be.

[Rysky]

Deth Braedon wrote:

read the sentence as a whole:

Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat.

then please think of a one-word answer to this question:
what is the frequency with which a “Severe-threat encounter” can be defeated?

if you thought of “consistently”, how do you define “consistently”?
if you thought of a different word, what was it? and how do you define that word?

Consistently does not mean always, here it means you have a chance against it and it's not a guranteed TPK, not an assured victory.

Again, read the section of the book you quoted that outright said "Bad luck, poor tactics, or a lack of resources due to prior encounters can easily turn a severe-threat encounter against the characters, and a wise group keeps the option to disengage open."

You can't quote that section and ignore that part as it suits your argument.

[Deth Braedon]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

My experience is that Level+3 creatures (which are a severe encounter for four PCs) are consistently beatable with decent (but NOT necessarily optimal) tactics, regardless of luck (to a point, but chain pulling low rolls, while the enemies get exclusively high rolls, is pretty unlikely.)

that is exactly what the CRB says

yet my experience over the past year has been very different
based upon the apparent push back I believe I am seeing in replies when I post “a group of players should consistently be defeating L+3 encounters”, one could very reasonably conclude there are many others with experiences similar to mine

[Cyouni]

Deth Braedon wrote:

“the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat”
not my definition, RAW

so yes, I expect to consistently, not ‘easily’, not ‘trouncing’ but consistently defeat L+3 encounters
while having Plan B (disengage) on deck

I think how the CRB defines this is the better baseline for this discussion
so yes, that baseline is
our party of well built characters run by skilled, tactically savvy players can and should “consistently defeat” L+3s

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

Like, through all of this I haven't heard anything that shows "tactically savvy" or "good tactics". Right now I've been assuming just flanking, which while helpful, is definitely not going to take you through a L+3 encounter on its own.

[Midnightoker]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

My experience is that Level+3 creatures (which are a severe encounter for four PCs) are consistently beatable with decent (but NOT necessarily optimal) tactics, regardless of luck (to a point, but chain pulling low rolls, while the enemies get exclusively high rolls, is pretty unlikely.)

I would also agree with this. The "consistently" is entirely contingent on what Rysky quoted earlier. It makes the assumption that:

- You are using relatively coherent tactics

- Your characters aren't suffering from poor rolls

Now in the scenario where the DC 25 SoS ruined the alchemists day, that's bad rolls to a T.

You also ran the encounters 3 times. One of those times was bound to end up with someone failing a DC 25 save to the creatures (arguably) strongest ability.

Also, and not to say this is necessary, but maybe after the first/second TPK you don't open the encounter with that ability as the GM. Honestly, a CL 7 creature looking at a bunch of level 4s and going "ha I don't even need to use the big stuff" on the first turn seems entirely within reason (If it explicitly says to do this in the AP, then okay, but I would have gone "nah" personally).

But let's say that's guaranteed first turn SoS on the Alchemist, as frustrating as that is (particularly after 2 previous goes), it's not an entirely "devastating turn" to anyone but the Alchemist really. It used most of its actions to do that and it only took one character out of the game.

I think it's important to understand that sometimes in order for other people at the table to get the spotlight/ability to act, you can't always be successful. It's a team game, sometimes in a team game, you're the one that has to take the big blow.

After all it says "The party can consistently defeat...", not "The alchemist can consistently shine against...".

That's not to say not having fun is a good thing, but that's when you make adjustments.

encounter adjustments I do:

Now the way I personally would set up encounters of extreme difficulty with circumstances that either provide less than TPK outcomes (such as severe setbacks, taken prisoner and gear stolen, etc. some kind of narrative payback). Or if it makes sense, give the party a LOT of set up knowing the threat they face, giving them just a slight advantage for the encounter. Sometimes, I will also add a "nugget" to the encounter or just prior to the encounter via some skill challenge. Basically, the more the PCs engage narratively, the more you reward them combatively.

[Staffan Johansson]

Unicore wrote:

And it is a problem exacerbated by the reality that many of the early PF2 adventures and modules were written to be more challenging than PF1 ones were. Whether that was deliberate, as I think was the case with Fall of Plaguestone, or not, which might be the case with some of the Age of Ashes encounters, is a fair question for debate, but it doesn't make it universally true that encounters in PF2 have to be more challenging, and we are seeing that as more and more material gets released.

I think there are two big issues with boss encounter design in PF2. One is that a big part of what happened with early adventures was that both designers and players went into them with an assumption that things worked sort of like in PF1.

In PF1, challenge rating was a joke. The original concept, dating back to D&D 3.0, was that a CR X creature would be a moderate workout for four unoptimized level X PCs, and that facing four of them in a row might put the party in danger in the fourth encounter. But given both unintended rule interactions (the wand of cure light wounds is a big culprit here, making a mockery of hp attrition) and general power creep on the part of the PCs, this was nowhere near true anymore.

So in order to provide a challenge, one had to pretty much ignore the encounter-building guidelines, and use some creativity in monster creation (such as outfitting NPCs with buffing potions to give them better stats than they'd have with permanent magic items). This was, in many ways, one of the selling points of the adventure paths, that this hard work was already done for you.

Now move forward to PF2, which pretty strongly recalibrates the expected difficulty. But I'm sure the adventure designers still thought "Well, party level +3 is certainly challenging, but it's not really dangerous, is it? My players kick CR 7 creatures' asses all the time at level 4, so how dangerous can it be?" But as we've seen, a level 7 creature is extremely dangerous against a level 4 party. It's also true that not all level differences are the same - PC level 5, in particular, is a major leg up because of 3rd level spells for casters and expert weapon proficiency for fighters, not to mention ability boosts. Level 4-5 is also where Striking weapons start to show up, and they make a huge difference to fighting ability.

The other thing that makes boss encounter design challenging in PF2 is that monster level is a one-dimensional gauge. This has some advantages — for example, the ogre warrior who made an absolutely terrifying boss at level 1 is mostly a mook at level 5, where the boss would instead be a hill giant. There is a certain satisfaction in that. But it means that bosses are generally not designed to be satisfying bosses, they are just designed to be really hard. This is in contrast to 5e where certain monsters have lair actions and legendary actions that provide them with action economy that make them good specifically as bosses, while still keeping their immediate numbers manageable. The dragon doesn't survive powerful spells by having such high saves that it only fails on a 4 or less, it survives powerful spells by having three uses of Legendary Resistance that let them turn a failed save into a success. This was even more true in 4e, with its designation of certain monsters as minions, elites, or solos.

I think the ship has sailed regarding making boss-specific PF2 monster designs, so instead one would have to look toward encounter design. One should be very careful when using monsters more than one or two levels above the PC, and preferably increase encounter difficulty by adding more monsters instead of more levels.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Deth Braedon wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

My experience is that Level+3 creatures (which are a severe encounter for four PCs) are consistently beatable with decent (but NOT necessarily optimal) tactics, regardless of luck (to a point, but chain pulling low rolls, while the enemies get exclusively high rolls, is pretty unlikely.)

that is exactly what the CRB says

yet my experience over the past year has been very different
based upon the apparent push back I believe I am seeing in replies when I post “a group of players should consistently be defeating L+3 encounters”, one could very reasonably conclude there are many others with experiences similar to mine

It seems more likely that you're punching below your weight class and should probably recognize that your experience isn't the be all, end all.

Other groups with the same resources demonstrating an ability to consistently take on a severe encounter, is sufficient evidence to deny your assertions credibility.

I'm not surprised there are others who do have similar experiences, 'good tactics' is a bar to strive for, not a given. If the book asserts that severe encounters require good tactics to consistently beat, and other players are expressing that they have confirmed that this is true, the most intuitive answer is that you have yet to achieve the tactical proficiency being discussed. I'm pretty sure some of the people agreeing with you have called out having played all of six sessions (2 levels at standard advancement rates) so I wouldn't be so quick to take for granted that they represent a better informed viewpoint than the people disagreeing with you, who have had longer to adapt to the game.

Wonderfully, even if you don't want to alter your tactics, its possible for the GM to adjust to compensate for your gaming style at pretty much no effort as I discussed previously.

[Ubertron_X]

Cyouni wrote:

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

Like, through all of this I haven't heard anything that shows "tactically savvy" or "good tactics". Right now I've been assuming just flanking, which while helpful, is definitely not going to take you through a L+3 encounter on its own.

How can you trip or intimidate when you fail with above average rolls already? How can you affect the monster with spells when it critically resists your one appropriate prepared spell?

The thing which buggers me most about all those white room discusions is not that they are wrong, they certainly aren't, but that one of the most important things that you really need as an individual player AND as a group is figuring out the meta.

* Your party Fighter decides to use a battleaxe together with his shield, because Dwarves use axes right? Congratulations, you have just removed the crit effect from the class that crits most, at least during typical single enemy boss fights.
* Your second martial is a Maul wielding Barbarian instead of e.g. a Monk? Congratulations, your party will likely never see an opponent grabbed or tripped apart from a lucky crit while raging (which probably will already be devastating by itself) because both of your martials usually have their hands full.
* Your high charisma Cleric chose Diplomacy over Intimidation because he considered it more appropriate for a servant of a good deity, usually also acting as the party face? Say goodbye to Demoralize or later StD.
* Your party Wizard is a fan of direct attacks trying to use Produce Flame over Electric Arc and also chose Acid Arrow over Hideous Laughter while leveling up? Though luck in boss fights too.

What I want to say is that you probably don't need to power-optimize in order to be effective and successful in PF2, however from personal experience, part of which is referenced above, I only want to explain that a lot can go wrong if you have not yet deciphered / mastered the game's meta.

Using the tools that you have been given also takes experience and prowess however you first need to recognize which tools to work with in the first place.

[Unicore]

@Staffan Johansson

I strongly agree with your analysis.
I will also say that when I homebrew, I throw level +3 monsters against my PCs all the time...because I am aware of their strengths and weaknesses and I make sure it is not a specific creature that is going to completely wail on them.

I also very frequently write in encounter goals for my big monsters that are bigger than kill the enemy dead real fast. My level +3 monsters are often trying to chase the PCs away, or rob them or knock them out to capture them. It really helps to do this as it makes for very difficult fights that only really turn lethal when it is clear the party poses a very serious threat to the monster.

I have killed 1 PC in 5 levels of encounter design this way. The level 4 PC crit failed a saving throw with no hero point and died to massive damage against a lightning bolt. The character exploded and it shocked everyone. The players loved it, even the one who died. This encounter was extra mean as the level 7 creature jumped them pretty much out of the blue, but was only acting as a bandit, demanding magical treasure. At any point in the combat they could have given it one magical item (including a cursed magic item that the party knew was worthless to them) and it would have let them go on their way. In the end the survivors fled and have already planned to return to kill it when they pass this way again.

[Staffan Johansson]

Cyouni wrote:

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

Spoiler:

The encounter in question is a Greater Barghest which has AC 25, Fort +17, Ref +15, Will +12, +17 to attacks, Attack of Opportunity, Blink, and 4th level Enlarge (making it Huge with a 15 ft reach). These things conspire to nullify most of the tactics a 4th level party can attempt.

Thing is, a level 4 character is going to have something like +9 or +10 to their skills, +12 tops (expert + stat 4 — and most characters will only have one skill at that level). So that gives a character that's specialized in Intimidation a 55% chance of success, on a once per fight attempt to Demoralize it. Being Huge makes it immune to combat maneuvers from most characters, and even someone with Titan Wrestler and specialized in Athletics will still need to roll 13+ to Trip it, and stepping away won't do much good given its Reach (you'd need to move 15 ft to get out of its reach unless you used a Trip weapon with reach to trip it, and if you Stride there's nothing that says it can't hit you with an AoO even when prone. And you can forget about dispelling its buffs, because you're trying to use a 2nd level dispel magic against a 4th level blink or enlarge, meaning you need to roll a critical success using your +10 spell attack against DC 25 — or, in other words, hoping for a natural 20.

And when it comes to plain combat, the numbers look very good for the barghest. A 4th level PC in heavy armor will have an AC of 22, or 24 with a raised shield. The barghest attacks at +17, so it hits on a 7 and crits on a 17. Its first attack deals about 17 points of damage, or 34 on a crit, against the 50-60 hp a 4th level character might have. The second attack is at +13, so it hits on an 11, and deals 15 damage. Meanwhile, the PC likely has +11 to hit (trained, stat +4, +1 weapon) so they need a 14 to hit on their first attack — about the same as the barghest would need on their third, if they made one.

When we fought it, the "tactic" we used was to load up on holy water in order to trigger its weakness against Good damage (with the weakness canceled out by the resistance from blink, but since holy water deals splash damage even a miss hurt it). We also had an allied spellcaster who made it waste many of its attacks on an illusionary monster.

This fight is absolutely brutal, and I think putting that in the first book of the first adventure path was a grave mistake, and probably scared off quite a few players who would otherwise enjoy Pathfinder 2.

[Deth Braedon]

Rysky wrote:

Consistently does not mean always, here it means you have a chance against it and it's not a guranteed TPK, not an assured victory.

the OED is your friend ‘here’

within it you will find
“in a consistent manner”
as one of the primary definitions
and yes, you will find the word
always
in the list of synonyms

other synonyms for the word consistently:
frequently, regularly, normally, commonly, usually, habitually, constantly, continually, invariably, routinely, incessantly, inevitably, infallibly, persistently, repeatedly, typically, unfailingly, dependably, monotonously, oftentimes, recurrently, as usual, all the time, each time, every time, at all times, on all occasions

that is, the phrase “you have a chance” is a misrepresentation of what use of the word consistently means

[The-Magic-Sword]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

** spoiler omitted **...

They notably only need a 12 while flanking it, which is the easiest condition to impose, and should help soak the damage across multiple PCs. This drops to 11 if he succeeds his save against a fear spell or you have a bard inspiring courage, and down further if you stack these or he fails the saving throw. Increment these numbers down by 2 for a fighter, and remember your champion is reducing the size of his hits and maybe getting to hit back at no penalty.

My players would probably spend slots on magic missile or magic weapon as well, magic missile reducing the number of times the party has to 'get lucky' while Magic Weapon makes it easier for someone to hit.

Its definitely on the tough side though, and it really highlights that actual accuracy is the biggest problem of the alchemist, as I mentioned above.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Deth Braedon wrote:

Rysky wrote:

Consistently does not mean always, here it means you have a chance against it and it's not a guranteed TPK, not an assured victory.

the OED is your friend ‘here’

within it you will find
“in a consistent manner”
as one of the primary definitions
and yes, you will find the word
always
in the list of synonyms

other synonyms for the word consistently:
frequently, regularly, normally, commonly, usually, habitually, constantly, continually, invariably, routinely, incessantly, inevitably, infallibly, persistently, repeatedly, typically, unfailingly, dependably, monotonously, oftentimes, recurrently, as usual, all the time, each time, every time, at all times, on all occasions

that is, the phrase “you have a chance” is a misrepresentation of what use of the word consistently means

Do 'usually' and 'frequently' and 'oftentimes' and 'commonly' all also mean 'always' to you, because those are represented in that list of synonyms as well, highlighting that the word doesn't have to mean 'always.'

[Rysky]

@Deth Braedon

It is not, let's look at the definitions.

1) in every case or on every occasion; invariably.

2) in a fair and impartial way.

So let's see, if you go off your reading, the first one that you cleave to, that you're always supposed to be able to defeat Severe encounters.... that makes absolutely no sense. For Severe or any difficulty encounter for that matter. The rules do not and would not say you can always defeat x encounter, because that is a blatant falsehood.

A falsehood that is blatantly two sentences later in that section.

Looking at your synonyms list you provided for whatever reason even they do not mean "always".

I really don't know what to tell you if you've for whatever reason been playing under the assumption that the rulebook says you're always supposed to be able to win against all Severe and lesser encounters till now *scratches head*

[Cyouni]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

** spoiler omitted **...

They notably only need a 12 while flanking it, which is the easiest condition to impose, and should help soak the damage across multiple PCs. This drops to 11 if he succeeds his save against a fear spell or you have a bard inspiring courage, and down further if you stack these or he fails the saving throw. Increment these numbers down by 2 for a fighter, and remember your champion is reducing the size of his hits and maybe getting to hit back at no penalty.

My players would probably spend slots on magic missile or magic weapon as well, magic missile reducing the number of times the party has to 'get lucky' while Magic Weapon makes it easier for someone to hit.

Its definitely on the tough side though, and it really highlights that actual accuracy is the biggest problem of the alchemist, as I mentioned above.

This fight constantly coming up in discussion has also had me recommend to my wizard to take Hideous Laughter in general. 55% chance of removing an action + AoO in that fight, 40% chance of "just" removing AoO is a pretty big game-changer.

Also the fact that a lot of things with AoO seem to have Will as their bad save because they're more martial types.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Cyouni wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

** spoiler omitted **...

They notably only need a 12 while flanking it, which is the easiest condition to impose, and should help soak the damage across multiple PCs. This drops to 11 if he succeeds his save against a fear spell or you have a bard inspiring courage, and down further if you stack these or he fails the saving throw. Increment these numbers down by 2 for a fighter, and remember your champion is reducing the size of his hits and maybe getting to hit back at no penalty.

My players would probably spend slots on magic missile or magic weapon as well, magic missile reducing the number of times the party has to 'get lucky' while Magic Weapon makes it easier for someone to hit.

Its definitely on the tough side though, and it really highlights that actual accuracy is the biggest problem of the alchemist, as I mentioned above.

This fight constantly coming up in discussion has also had me recommend to my wizard to take Hideous Laughter in general. 55% chance of removing an action + AoO in that fight, 40% chance of "just" removing AoO is a pretty big game-changer.

Also the fact that a lot of things with AoO seem to have Will as their bad save because they're more martial types.

That is a really good one, yeah, given what Staffan mentioned about its chances to hit its third attack. There's really a bunch of useful tactics to employ, depending on what you have at hand.

[Deth Braedon]

Rysky wrote:

@Deth Braedon

It is not, let's look at the definitions.

1) in every case or on every occasion; invariably.

2) in a fair and impartial way.

So let's see, if you go off your reading, the first one that you cleave to, that you're always supposed to be able to defeat Severe encounters.... that makes absolutely no sense. For Severe or any difficulty encounter for that matter. The rules do not and would not say you can always defeat x encounter, because that is a blatant falsehood.

A falsehood that is blatantly two sentences later in that section.

Looking at your synonyms list you provided for whatever reason even they do not mean "always".

I really don't know what to tell you if you've for whatever reason been playing under the assumption that the rulebook says you're always supposed to be able to win against all Severe and lesser encounters till now *scratches head*

a lot to unpack there

I’ll skip most of it as much of it presumes facts not in evidence

you said, “Consistently does not mean always”
which is, factually, incorrect
always is one of the myriad definitions of consistently (I again strongly recommend the OED)
you also said “if you go off your reading”, which is a misrepresentation of what I did
I pointed out your lexiconic error, and presented a broader context
nothing more

I did not select this or that synonym over others, declared no part as the ultimate definition (others erroneously implied I did, or even openly stated such)

I will say that when the CRB was written, the sentence which made the final cut was:
Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat.

Consistently was the word used.
Given their use of the word most (meaning “over 50%”) as their chosen qualifier for groups, they could have used most in place of the more comprehensive (aka even higher percentage) consistently.
They could have used the word many (aka relatively numerous, usually implying not most, not a majority).
They did not.
The as published phrase was “can consistently defeat.”
Not “can defeat most times.”
Not “can defeat many times.”
No. The phrasing used is, by definition, most consistent with “the vast majority of times”.
Perhaps many other phrases were considered.
Perhaps no other phrase was.
I don’t know.
I do know the sentence is:
Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat.

and not:
Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups have a chance against”.

queue the laughing raccoon

[Rysky]

Based on your incorrect reading of that sentence.

Consistently does not mean always, as been pointed out.

Consistently was not used that way in that sentence, as been pointed out.

[Staffan Johansson]

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

They notably only need a 12 while flanking it, which is the easiest condition to impose, and should help soak the damage across multiple PCs.

Flanking is pretty hard to achieve in this fight, given that the creature is Huge and has a 15 ft reach, and that blink teleports the creature 10 ft in a random direction after each of its turns (so the people flanking it need to reposition, which exposes them to AoOs).

Quote:

This drops to 11 if he succeeds his save against a fear spell or you have a bard inspiring courage, and down further if you stack these or he fails the saving throw. Increment these numbers down by 2 for a fighter, and remember your champion is reducing the size of his hits and maybe getting to hit back at no penalty.

My players would probably spend slots on magic missile or magic weapon as well, magic missile reducing the number of times the party has to 'get lucky' while Magic Weapon makes it easier for someone to hit.

So now we have a fighter, a champion, a bard, and someone casting both fear and magic missile (yes, the bard can cast either of these, but not at the same time, and to get full use of magic missile you need to drop inspire courage). And maybe hideous laughter too. That's beginning to be a pretty big party.

[Deth Braedon]

Rysky wrote:

Based on your incorrect reading of that sentence.

Consistently does not mean always, as been pointed out.

Consistently was not used that way in that sentence, as been pointed out.

I never said it meant always in that sentence

you have tried multiple times to claim I did
I did say “have a chance against” is, at best, poorly synonymous with “consistently” and provided a list of words and phrases all of which are superior synonyms
that is subjectively accurate
if you want to claim some subjective, ‘in this instance this is what the author meant when they used this or that word’ (when you are not the author in question), I believe that is the definition of presumptuous

[Deth Braedon]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

** spoiler omitted **...

lotsa crunch, really solid post - thanks

Q for you:

regarding the holy water - how’d you get the heads up on that? our group just kinda ran into that critter

[Deth Braedon]

Midnightoker wrote:

You also ran the encounters 3 times. One of those times was bound to end up with someone failing a DC 25 save to the creatures (arguably) strongest ability.

Also, and not to say this is necessary, but maybe after the first/second TPK you don't open the encounter with that ability as the GM. Honestly, a CL 7 creature looking at a bunch of level 4s and going "ha I don't even need to use the big stuff" on the first turn seems entirely within reason (If it explicitly says to do this in the AP, then okay, but I would have gone "nah" personally).

the V- fight once, next week R1, next week R2

the full details are back in a spoiler tag
and our group has had the discussion regarding pulling punches, GM fudging, however you’d like to phrase it
we want none of that
if our foes don’t go as all out as we do, we’d rather play chutes&ladders

[Cyouni]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

Please tell me what you did to make that happen. Did you Trip it and Step away to deny it actions? Did you use spells like Tempest Surge to lower its AC? Did you use concealment like Blur or Mistform Elixir to lower its chance to hit? Did you use Intimidate or Fear to penalize all of its stats after delaying so that your party could take max advantage?

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

** spoiler omitted **...

One thing to also consider here is that to achieve that state, the boss has given the party two complete sets of turns, and even landing a saved Hideous Laughter drops the threat from the Enlarge drastically, turning it into effectively +4 damage and clumsy 1.

Is it still going to be a massive threat? Definitely. But the time it takes for the threat to ramp up gives the party the chance to do something about it.

[Midnightoker]

I think it’s more than fair to say that encounter is overtuned. Haven’t played it myself but that creatures value against a below level party is just a tough pill to swallow.

[Cyouni]

I also want to highlight the fact that the party listed was a Monk, Ranger, Cleric, and Alchemist. This party is probably one of the worst possible I could pick for that specific encounter.

Monk and (ranged) Ranger are good in damage, but probably aren't going to be tossing out much buffs/debuffs. Trying to get off a Trip is probably the best I'd expect from a Monk in that.
Cleric is good in healing, and has other spells, but the divine list is really not good at dealing with higher-level things, especially not at this level. Heroism is level 3, and even if they'd prepared for it Cleric can only really toss out Fear and Bless to help numbers.
I'm a lot less hard on Alchemist than others might be, but it's not a good debuffer. Lesser Mistform Elixir, Moderate Drakeheart Mutagen, and bombs are really the things I'd be looking at here.

Altogether, looking at it, this party really doesn't have many ways of affecting numbers. It also struggles on hindering enemy actions, which is super important in a level+3 fight - because every one of the enemy's actions is worth 3-4 of your own, stripping them of actions in any way possible is crucial.
So more than anything, the outcome of any difficult fight with this party lies in how they can use the environment to their advantage, and they're also going to have to retreat and reprepare a lot more than a more balanced party might.

[Magnus Arcanus]

Cyouni wrote:

I also want to highlight the fact that the party listed was a Monk, Ranger, Cleric, and Alchemist. This party is probably one of the worst possible I could pick for that specific encounter.

Monk and (ranged) Ranger are good in damage, but probably aren't going to be tossing out much buffs/debuffs. Trying to get off a Trip is probably the best I'd expect from a Monk in that.
Cleric is good in healing, and has other spells, but the divine list is really not good at dealing with higher-level things, especially not at this level. Heroism is level 3, and even if they'd prepared for it Cleric can only really toss out Fear and Bless to help numbers.
I'm a lot less hard on Alchemist than others might be, but it's not a good debuffer. Lesser Mistform Elixir, Moderate Drakeheart Mutagen, and bombs are really the things I'd be looking at here.

Altogether, looking at it, this party really doesn't have many ways of affecting numbers. It also struggles on hindering enemy actions, which is super important in a level+3 fight - because every one of the enemy's actions is worth 3-4 of your own, stripping them of actions in any way possible is crucial.
So more than anything, the outcome of any difficult fight with this party lies in how they can use the environment to their advantage, and they're also going to have to retreat and reprepare a lot more than a more balanced party might.

The encounter in question took place months ago, before the APG was even out, so some of the alchemist options you mention weren't even a thing.

The PCs did what they could to limit its actions (going from memory here, again this fight is months old) and avoided giving it three attacks every round except the first (where the confused monk didn't get a choice). Tactics were not the issue.

[Temperans]

What is the point of being a caster if you have to take X spells otherwise your are useless at worst, and a extra at best?

Also consistently does mean "in every case" or "more often than not". The idea the it means "there is a chance" seems off and trying to make the word fit your idea of how the game plays. But its most likely a failure on Paizo due to how new the system is.

The essential problem between PF1 and PF2 is that they have two entirely different ideas of what a balanced encounter was. With people having many different ideas of what they want. CR in PF1 is used as a loose guideline, something to help loosely create an encounter. But people used it as a strict reference and complained of imbalance. PF2 on the other hand is very strict with its level guidelines. But people are talking about using a looser system because its otherwise too ridged.

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Deth Braedon wrote:

here you go

Bumbling Babboons
GM posted that last year; I only learned of it the 5th of this month when he shared that link
I was one of the four players, all of which had the same thought
that wasn’t our John McClane moment of Die Hard winning, that was us being tossed in the deep end and, fortunately, this time, the dice gods said,
sure, let’s give those idiots a moment of the Teela Brown gene, after all, their denouement will be a TPK

none of us were thrilled or juiced by that fight, it left a bad taste
we all did the like, seriously? look at the GM

of the four, two of the lot are gone gone (not playing PF2e, not in touch), the two of us left have been joined by three others (for a party of five, with the GM not adjusting encounters due to party size)
** spoiler omitted **

yes, in the irrelevant fights (L-# ones) we rocked the beasties
in the fights that really matter (L+2,L+3,L+4), we reconsider our choice of past times

I know that fight, I have run that fight. It is very very hard and almost certainly a TPK if played tactically and not like the insane creature he is (he is literally insane) but whomever wrote it into the adventure made a mistake.

That is more of an issue of that specific encounter being in that location in those circumstances in that adventure though.

It has all sorts of elements that make it hard for players to enjoy.

- They don't know it is a fight till they engage with it
- The foe is hiding their true form initially and the form they are in is very very weak usually and thought of as comedic relief (that said being surrounded by skeletons should be a bit of a warning)
- The encounter arena is ENTIRELY in its advantage and not to the players
- It is three levels higher than the players, but comes with all sorts of abilities they have no way to prep for or deal with
- It is the first adventure and early on in it, people still play the game as if PF1e or even 5e tactics are optimal rather than being a good way to get yourself killed.

The party has some concessions, but not many
- He functionally has 80hp rather than 105
- He starts as a non-hostile so if the GM can foreshadow the party doesn't have to fight it or can get away to prep, but don't know what they are fighting so good luck with that
- Renali acts as another body and can provide a bit of help
- A DC27 deception check can completely circumvent the fight... As can just doing what he wants. But, a DC27 check is unlikely even for a charisma primary with expert in their skill.

My players got through it with a sorcerer blowing slots on heal, awful spread out tactics, and a hasty retreat up the ledge and into the tunnels (taking cover actions while relying on the ranger and rogue to do damage).

Going down to a super powerful foe isn't bad design rules wise though, it is just bad encounter design in an adventure that was being written and playtested before the final rules were out. Personally if I were to run it again I would slap a weak template on it to represent it being starved of sustenance(not food) and quite insane.

As for the alchemist, they don't really come online until level 5-7 and that alone will make your life harder, they got a lot better post APG but still require the person building them to know what they are doing (yes this is a flaw in design, but it is what it is, alchemists on a whole are really quite powerful levels 10+ though and dual weapon bomber builds are hilariously fun)

For the record a party of level 4 characters can consistently defeat the fight from AoA, but consistently defeating is not synonymous with easily defeating. "Most groups" does not also mean "all groups", the fact that it then says "badluck, poor tactics, lack of resources can easily turn a severe encounter against players" also clarifies what it means, and that isn't that the fight will be a guaranteed win, regardless of how people read consistently. Can is also an operative word in the sentence.
Having a non-coherent group mechanics wise won't help either(Not tactics wise, character build wise. Not every party is equal. This is not a criticism)

As for the CRB, it specifically says "extreme or severe threat boss" for +3. The encounter in question may be severe in XP budget, but it is certainly closer to extreme given everything else stacked against the PCs.

It is a good teaching encounter though, one that taught my group to be cautious even if the thing in front of them didn't seem like it was stronger than them. It resulted in better roleplay going forwards and less reliance on "knowledge" that their game mechanics would carry them through unscathed in every scenario.

In another game I am running the party was 3 casters, one alchemist and they utterly destroyed the first two chapters of Extinction Curse with minimal challenge. Experience matters quite a bit.

[Cyouni]

Magnus Arcanus wrote:

Cyouni wrote:

I also want to highlight the fact that the party listed was a Monk, Ranger, Cleric, and Alchemist. This party is probably one of the worst possible I could pick for that specific encounter.

Monk and (ranged) Ranger are good in damage, but probably aren't going to be tossing out much buffs/debuffs. Trying to get off a Trip is probably the best I'd expect from a Monk in that.
Cleric is good in healing, and has other spells, but the divine list is really not good at dealing with higher-level things, especially not at this level. Heroism is level 3, and even if they'd prepared for it Cleric can only really toss out Fear and Bless to help numbers.
I'm a lot less hard on Alchemist than others might be, but it's not a good debuffer. Lesser Mistform Elixir, Moderate Drakeheart Mutagen, and bombs are really the things I'd be looking at here.

Altogether, looking at it, this party really doesn't have many ways of affecting numbers. It also struggles on hindering enemy actions, which is super important in a level+3 fight - because every one of the enemy's actions is worth 3-4 of your own, stripping them of actions in any way possible is crucial.
So more than anything, the outcome of any difficult fight with this party lies in how they can use the environment to their advantage, and they're also going to have to retreat and reprepare a lot more than a more balanced party might.

The encounter in question took place months ago, before the APG was even out, so some of the alchemist options you mention weren't even a thing.

The PCs did what they could to limit its actions (going from memory here, again this fight is months old) and avoided giving it three attacks every round except the first (where the confused monk didn't get a choice). Tactics were not the issue.

That's certainly fair! I mainly wanted to look at the party and really just note that the makeup is hard-pressed to deal with a significantly higher-level fight like that one.

The more you can lower the number disparity, the less luck will play a part.
The more you can deny the enemy actions, the less it has the chance to pull off crits by simply rolling high. Part of it is also the level it's encountered at, where those sorts of tools are rarer.

[The-Magic-Sword]

Staffan Johansson wrote:

The-Magic-Sword wrote:

They notably only need a 12 while flanking it, which is the easiest condition to impose, and should help soak the damage across multiple PCs.

Flanking is pretty hard to achieve in this fight, given that the creature is Huge and has a 15 ft reach, and that blink teleports the creature 10 ft in a random direction after each of its turns (so the people flanking it need to reposition, which exposes them to AoOs).

Quote:

This drops to 11 if he succeeds his save against a fear spell or you have a bard inspiring courage, and down further if you stack these or he fails the saving throw. Increment these numbers down by 2 for a fighter, and remember your champion is reducing the size of his hits and maybe getting to hit back at no penalty.

My players would probably spend slots on magic missile or magic weapon as well, magic missile reducing the number of times the party has to 'get lucky' while Magic Weapon makes it easier for someone to hit.

So now we have a fighter, a champion, a bard, and someone casting both fear and magic missile (yes, the bard can cast either of these, but not at the same time, and to get full use of magic missile you need to drop inspire courage). And maybe hideous laughter too. That's beginning to be a pretty big party.

Nope, those weren't meant to be all at once, they were all examples that separately make the encounter much more manageable by their presence and the more you have, the better it is, the more that list grows, the more options you have for tactically dealing with the encounter and the likelier it represents something you probably have.

Its a party with a fighter *and/or* champion *and/or* bard's inspire courage *and/or* magic missile *and/or* fear *and/or* magic weapon *and/or* and so forth. It isn't a binary of 'we have every tactical advantage in the game' contrasted with 'we have no choice but to just continue rolling against its full AC.'

[Ruzza]

Can we please stop using the level + 3 Extreme boss encounter to discuss the "feeling of being heroic?" Like, yes, absolutely a party that goes in knowing their stuff and rolling well can succeed, but even then it's difficult. It's an incredibly difficult encounter and, being a part of the first book in the first AP that was written before the adventure guidelines were really solidified, it's in a bad spot.

I run the encounter as written, but I always advise GMs to adjust it or in the very least make their players aware that it's coming up. Per the encounter guidelines, you shouldn't be seeing things like that crop up every adventure. Or even every other adventure. They're typically reserved for a once a campaign fight.

Core Rulebook page 488 wrote:

An extreme-threat encounter might be appropriate for a fully rested group of characters that can go all-out, for the climactic encounter at the end of an entire campaign, or for a group of veteran players using advanced tactics and teamwork.

I think that such an encounter has it's place within the AP (only because my group used that as an opportunity to discuss strategy more deeply, and I assumed other groups ended up doing the same), but it certainly shouldn't be considered normal. I also believe that if AoA were to be given another pass, then it would in the very least have the weak adjustment applied.

[Ascalaphus]

I feel like the encounter construction tables aren't quite right.

120XP is supposed to be a a Severe encounter - the top that you can consistently defeat.

A 120XP encounter built from three L+0 creatures (40XP each), yeah, I think we can consistently defeat that. We'll take some damage but we'll be fine.

A 120XP encounter built from two L+1 creatures (60XP each), yeah we can do that consistently.

A 120XP encounter built from a L+0 and L+2 creature (40 and 80XP respectively), that works too.

A 140!XP encounter built from two L-1 and one L+2 creature, (2x30, 1x80) we can do that too. This one can feel like a proper boss battle with one creature that's quite a bit stronger than both us and its minions.

But the 120XP encounter with the single L+3 encounter that really doesn't work well. We might win, but almost always it's a sour victory with people frustrated that most of their spells and attacks bounce off and the thing is critting like crazy.

Note how I'm saying that a 140XP encounter that splits the budget over multiple creatures is actually much better than the single level+3 encounter. One level difference is a really big difference and at three levels different, it just adds up over a tipping point.

Now, adventure writers lean heavily on the design tables in the book. The math behind how they're constructed isn't obvious at all (probably more the result of lots of playtesting than a whiteboard math proof). So if your experience level isn't quite as high as "I designed this game" falling back on those tables makes a lot of sense. But, they just don't work for the extremes of L+3 creatures.

Three levels difference is where superior numbers on the PC sides just don't help anymore. Where everyone is just miserable and frustrated.

If you see this in a book, consider rewriting the encounter. Doesn't have to be hard. You can:
- drop a Weak template on the L+3 monster
- add a pair of L-1 flunkies that the PCs have fought before and know how to handle

It'll still feel like a boss fight, it'll still be tough, but it'll be more fun.

[Staffan Johansson]

Deth Braedon wrote:

Staffan Johansson wrote:

I'm going to put this in spoiler tags as I believe this is referring to a particular AOA1 fight.

** spoiler omitted **...

lotsa crunch, really solid post - thanks

** spoiler omitted **

We ran away from the fight the first time, ran back to town, rested up, and stocked up on the Godjuice.

[Staffan Johansson]

Cyouni wrote:

One thing to also consider here is that to achieve that state, the boss has given the party two complete sets of turns, and even landing a saved Hideous Laughter drops the threat from the Enlarge drastically, turning it into effectively +4 damage and clumsy 1.

Is it still going to be a massive threat? Definitely. But the time it takes for the threat to ramp up gives the party the chance to do something about it.

It's been a while since we played that encounter, but here's how I remember it going the second time around (after we had ran away like chickens the first time and prepared as well as we could). Our party consists of a paladin, a primal sorcerer (my character), a cleric, and a bomber alchemist. At that point, we weren't big on debuffs, though I've since managed to pick some up.

Spoiler

:

Round 1: I think the barghest went first, because after all its three-level difference gives it a much higher Perception than any of us. It casts Enlarge, and the increased size and reach puts it into contact with our paladin, so it gets a bite attack off. The paladin does his best to tank it (I think this was when he switched to using a one-handed weapon + tower shield to max AC instead of his previous maul), and the rest of us throw holy water, doing some damage (1+5 damage even on a miss is nice). I don't remember if the paladin had gotten his hands on a striking weapon at this point or if the cleric used Magic Weapon to give him one.
Round 2: Because of the holy water, the barghest casts Blink, which cancels out its weakness to Good damage, and bites again. I believe this is when I tried dispelling it only to realize I needed a natural 20. We keep pelting it with holy water, and our allied caster distracts it some with Illusory Creature.
Then it kept going like that. We managed OK because it spread out its attacks some (including on the illusion), and eventually it tried getting away into a hidey-hole where I killed it with some more holy water.

[Staffan Johansson]

Ascalaphus wrote:

I feel like the encounter construction tables aren't quite right.

120XP is supposed to be a a Severe encounter - the top that you can consistently defeat.

A 120XP encounter built from three L+0 creatures (40XP each), yeah, I think we can consistently defeat that. We'll take some damage but we'll be fine.

A 120XP encounter built from two L+1 creatures (60XP each), yeah we can do that consistently.

A 120XP encounter built from a L+0 and L+2 creature (40 and 80XP respectively), that works too.

A 140!XP encounter built from two L-1 and one L+2 creature, (2x30, 1x80) we can do that too. This one can feel like a proper boss battle with one creature that's quite a bit stronger than both us and its minions.

But the 120XP encounter with the single L+3 encounter that really doesn't work well. We might win, but almost always it's a sour victory with people frustrated that most of their spells and attacks bounce off and the thing is critting like crazy.

Note how I'm saying that a 140XP encounter that splits the budget over multiple creatures is actually much better than the single level+3 encounter. One level difference is a really big difference and at three levels different, it just adds up over a tipping point.

This is a very good analysis. Level +3 is where the higher stats outweigh the numerical advantage, and where a spellcasting monster will possibly have spells 2 levels above the party meaning you can't dispel them.

The Level+3 creature should probably be at 150 XP on the table, elegant progression (+2 levels = double XP) be damned. And I don't know what a level+4 should be, maybe 200?

[The Gleeful Grognard]

Ascalaphus wrote:

But the 120XP encounter with the single L+3 encounter that really doesn't work well. We might win, but almost always it's a sour victory with people frustrated that most of their spells and attacks bounce off and the thing is critting like crazy.

Note how I'm saying that a 140XP encounter that splits the budget over multiple creatures is actually much better than the single level+3 encounter. One level difference is a really big difference and at three levels different, it just adds up over a tipping point.

Now, adventure writers lean heavily on the design tables in the book. The math behind how they're constructed isn't obvious at all (probably more the result of lots of playtesting than a whiteboard math proof). So if your experience level isn't quite as high as "I designed this game" falling back on those tables makes a lot of sense. But, they just don't work for the extremes of L+3 creatures.

Three levels difference is where superior numbers on the PC sides just don't help anymore. Where everyone is just miserable and frustrated.

It works fine when players are at higher levels though, a +3 monster works well at level 7+ for instance. Hard fight but players have enough tools and hp to deal with it in most instances.

And I believe AP design past AoA tends to represent this quite well for encounters where combat is meant to be the resolution tool (not all encounters are meant to be fought head on and I appreciate that too, the owlbear in AoE for example).
So while there is an argument that can be made for GMs not needing to know the encounter building section if they are running premade content, if it is an Age of Ashes / Plaguestone issue then it isn't really an issue imo (and one that could be corrected with an errata document imo/updated pdf even without a print run)

Also as for the crb, please let us remember that the book is quite clear that a +3 creature is a "extreme or severe threat", so the developers are well aware that the tipping point exists. Anyone GM who has read the section should be aware, if they forget then that is something for them to learn.

This is to say, the encounter building rules aren't perfect. But they are better in estimation than near any other encounter guidelines I have used for other systems, if only because they roughly work.
Still going to be borked if you throw a bad matchup to a party not able to deal with it (a troop of AoO creatures vs a caster/ranged party for instance).

[The Rot Grub]

The Gleeful Grognard wrote:

And I believe AP design past AoA tends to represent this quite well for encounters where combat is meant to be the resolution tool

I would further revise this by saying that Paizo has been in a continuous learning process when it comes to stacking encounters back-to-back for low-level parties, which was discussed extensively in a recent discussion thread. I ran the first chapter of volume 1 of Extinction curse, and that Adventure expects a level one party to go through 1000 XP of encounters in a single adventuring day. Way too much. And it tops the day off with a Severe boss battle.