| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
The Beginner Box adventure features a boss encounter that is rated as Severe and giving the party 120 XP. What is interesting is that it is a Level 4 creature going up against a 2nd-level party.
By the Encounter Building guidelines of the Core Rulebook, that is an 80 XP monster and the encounter is Moderate encounter. However, it is rated as Severe and awards 120 XP.
While GMing solo monsters from the modules and Adventure Paths that are 2 levels above the party's level and the party's still low-level, I have seen most such encounters lead to near deaths and near-TPKs and the party needs to blow many of their daily resources and pull off some heroics to prevail. It seems like monsters that are above the party's level hit above their weight class, as Level 1 characters have fewer HP and low level parties have fewer ways to counter bad luck. As my players have leveled up, they seem to be able to handle higher-level challenges more easily.
Now, I've had enough experience GMing that I feel I can put a finger to the wind during an encounter and sense whether it merits a Severe rating. In hindsight, I probably would have rated some of those "Moderate" encounters in the official adventures the way Paizo's Beginner Box does it: as Severe.
Going into the future, it may be worth having a caveat spelled out in the rules that the GM should feel free to adjust the XP reward, if the party's actual experience matches the description of what a "Severe" or "Moderate" encounter is.
In the case of Severe encounters, the relevant description is:
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.
I have seen the future of encounter budgets, and it's in the Beginner Box!
I am agreement with Zapp on this one.
At lower levels and sometimes midlevel depending on the monster abilities, Challenge+2 is almost a TPK, but such encounters are relatively easy to 15 and up parties. High level parties have clerics that can erase damage, probability shifting math to lower ACs, and do truck tons of damage.
I think it's less that 120 XP encounters are too strong for low level parties and more that level+3 monsters are too strong for low level parties. I find a group can take out 3 on-level enemies (a severe encounter) fairly consistently at any level. Maybe not at level 1, but only because bad dice luck can swing things so far.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah I'm seeing the same in practice;
* L+2 at level 1 can be murderous, and has a good chance of triggering the death by massive damage rule on a crit. Death by massive damage goes from a frequent threat at L1 to almost unheard of at L2+ which is in itself a sign all is not well with that rule.
* Somewhere between L3 and L6, L+2 monsters move from Severe to Moderate.
* L+3 monsters feel like Extreme at lower levels (the infamous L7 boss in AoA1..). Even by level 10, I think they should only be used as significant, plot-relevant enemies, not a random side encounter (AoA3 again). Three levels difference makes a big difference in whether you can land spells and other daily abilities at all and that just isn't fun for a "side" encounter. But to be fair, they're not as straight up murderous anymore as they were at lower levels.
Overall I think this does describe the "you're getting stronger at higher level" phenomenon - the encounter building guidelines are the most spot-on at mid-levels and you start a bit weaker than that and end a bit stronger than that. Whether that's good ("we're getting better") or bad ("I rely on the guidelines telling me what makes for a Severe-feeling encounter") is a matter of opinion.
I think definitely at the high end, there's a big difference between a 120XP encounter that puts all its oomph into one L+3 monster, or that splits it across three L+0 monsters.
"But you're supposed to use debuffs" Yeah I know, I'm playing the caster and I'm the one doing the debuffing. Getting the thin end of the wedge in so to speak, can be really hard on higher levels monsters. Until you get some kind of weakening going, it can be hard to land a weakening effect. At a certain level difference, getting the debuffing going in the first place becomes really hard. Level difference is not really as linear as the tables make it look. The difference between L+0 and L+1 isn't as big as between L+2 and L+3.
|
L+2 at level 1 is level 3. Which is the level when Martials get an enormous damage boost with the first Striking rune, when everybody gets the first proficiency increase in skill and when casters access level 2 spells.
I wonder if L3 monsters are designed to be the to-level of L3 PCs rather than the L+2 of L1 PCs.
Considering the power boost that happens at L3, this could explain why the L3 monsters have a power gap over L1 PCs.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
It's just that the simplification is too great when they claim encounters can be built the same way at level 2 and 10, or level 10 and 18, not to mention level 2 and 18.
I don't find an easy way to properly balance encounters at low and high levels with a single rule. Shifting encounters one difficulty higher like you suggest only works for boss encounters. Mooks are also affected by the extreme low level progression and mooks encounters should be shifted one difficulty lower. For example, at level 1, you can easily dispatch 8 level -1 creatures and it's nowhere near an Extreme encounter.
At high levels, you can put the party against level +4 creatures without risking TPK, but on the other hand if you start stacking minions with spellcasting abilities you very quickly end up with auto-TPK encounters.| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's less that 120 XP encounters are too strong for low level parties and more that level+3 monsters are too strong for low level parties. I find a group can take out 3 on-level enemies (a severe encounter) fairly consistently at any level. Maybe not at level 1, but only because bad dice luck can swing things so far.That might well be, but I tried to keep it simple.
The message "upgrade the guideline's difficulty rating one step at levels 1-6 and downgrade it one step at levels 15-20" is easy.
Your comment might be more accurate, but would likely mean a complete rewrite of the guidelines would be needed.
Cheers
I don't think a total rewrite is necessary at all. Keep the encounter system exactly as it is, and just keep in mind that low level characters have a harder time dealing with solo boss monsters. No need to change XP at all.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't think a total rewrite is necessary at all. Keep the encounter system exactly as it is, and just keep in mind that low level characters have a harder time dealing with solo boss monsters. No need to change XP at all.I suggest no rewrite.
I suggest no XP changes.
I simply suggest that, at low level where a GM can't be assumed to yet have mastered the system, a "Low" encounter is presented as "Moderate" and a "Moderate" encounter is presented as "Severe".
And that official APs instead of presenting Severe encounters as "Extreme" avoid featuring them altogether at the very lowest levels.
No change in actual guidelines. No change in XP awards. :)
But encounters aren't more difficult at low levels except for single boss encounters. Plus, this poses the risk of confusing any new GM who is familiar with the encounter building rules (I know that encounter building rules were one of the first things I looked up when I started).
|
L+2 at level 1 is level 3. Which is the level when Martials get an enormous damage boost with the first Striking rune, when everybody gets the first proficiency increase in skill and when casters access level 2 spells.
I wonder if L3 monsters are designed to be the to-level of L3 PCs rather than the L+2 of L1 PCs.
Considering the power boost that happens at L3, this could explain why the L3 monsters have a power gap over L1 PCs.
Striking Runes are L4 items, though.
Our concern should 95% be directed at low-level encounters. It is there TPKs do the most harm. It is there a GM is most likely to be inexperienced. It is there a TPK can derail an entire campaign and maybe even make Paizo lose long-term customers.
I agree on that.
It's just that seeing 4 level -1 creatures flagged at Severe at level 1 is a joke considering it's closer to a Low encounter.In my opinion, there should be a guideline of not using higher level creatures at low level. Like "You should avoid using creatures whose level is 50% higher than the level of the party".
Anyway, there's an issue with low level experience. Both with encounter building and the lack of low level creatures (20 level -1 creatures, 21 level 0) which pushes adventure writers and GMs alike to put higher level creatures against the PCs.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Can't this issue really be summarized as:
When you, the GM, send your party against a higher-level solo opponent, be aware that solo monsters typical have many strengths in comparison to your party's abilities and only one or two exploitable weaknesses.
At lower levels, most parties are limited in how effectively they can exploit different kinds of weaknesses, so it is very easy to end up overmatching your party with a solo monster that has advantages the party is unprepared for. As the party levels up, and becomes more diversified in their abilities, this situation is much less likely to occur, especially if your party plays together for long enough to learn each players strengths and weaknesses and how to cover for each other when necessary.
As far as lower level enemies becoming more dangerous, isn't this just really saying that enemy casters can become dangerous to parties, even with mid level spells, especially once they no longer have to try to take the whole party out by themselves, but can resort to action denial and debuffing?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Can't this issue really be summarized as:
When you, the GM, send your party against a higher-level solo opponent, be aware that solo monsters typical have many strengths in comparison to your party's abilities and only one or two exploitable weaknesses.
At lower levels, most parties are limited in how effectively they can exploit different kinds of weaknesses, so it is very easy to end up overmatching your party with a solo monster that has advantages the party is unprepared for. As the party levels up, and becomes more diversified in their abilities, this situation is much less likely to occur, especially if your party plays together for long enough to learn each players strengths and weaknesses and how to cover for each other when necessary.
No, because it's not the reason why BBEGs are so hard at low level.
A level 4 creature has 4 times the hit point pool of a level 1 creature and deals 2.3 times more damage.A level 20 creature has 20% more hps and 15% more damage than a level 17 creature.
That's all. Nothing to do with weaknesses and strength or strategies to fight them. It's just sheer numbers that make boss fights so deadly at low level and so ridiculous at high level.
As far as lower level enemies becoming more dangerous, isn't this just really saying that enemy casters can become dangerous to parties, even with mid level spells, especially once they no longer have to try to take the whole party out by themselves, but can resort to action denial and debuffing?
Once again, no. It's because of the 4 degrees of success on spells. A lower level creature will still deal 50% damage on a successful save. So, if you stack enough low level creature at a level high enough for damaging spells to be deadly (level 7+) then there's not even a reason to throw the dice: Even if you succeed at all your saves you're dead.
For example, 12 level 11 sorcerers are a Severe encounter for a level 15 party. 12 Chain Lightnings deal 624 damage on average, save for half... Unless you critically succeed at most of your saves, you're dead in one round.|
|
For a long time, a very long time, because it was also the case in PF1, Paizo has wanted to present a practically usable encounter building system. Look up how hard you want your encounter to be, look up how much XP that is, then put monsters in your shopping basket until you've got enough.
So one monster worth 100 is supposed to be equal to two worth 50, four worth 25 and ten worth 10 each.
But this doesn't really work very well in practice - single high level monsters break the formula. As do very large crowds of individually puny enemies, unless they resort to shenanigans like always-hitting magic missiles which do a run-around the level/AC curve.
So it doesn't work perfectly - but actually it works reasonably well in the middle. Three L+0 enemies played well can indeed feel Severe, and a L+2 and L+0 certainly can. It's just the L+3 that's overdoing it. And the horde of L-2s also have a hard time getting taken seriously as Severe.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
just to chime in that while i've been planning for a "boss" encounter for my level 4 party, i initially thought of putting a level 6 monster plus a level 3 monster (they are 5, so it would be 110 xp encounter, so just above "moderate") but after reviewing the numbers a bit it seems like even the level+2 by itself which is about "low" encounter (80xp and low is 75xp for 5 people) is probably enough to kill at least 1 and maybe tpk the party...
I think a very big issue here is whether the fight is telegraphed at all. A L+2 monster behind a big ominous door is not as likely to catch the players by surprise.
Another thing that matters is if the monster has some kind of "trick", like it being catastrophic to use piercing/slashing weapons against them. And maybe compounding that with AoOs or something else that makes it hard to change tactics mid-fight (remember, drawing a weapon provokes).
If the party comes into it using the right weapons/tactics and doesn't lose a round switching gears, that can make a big difference.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
unfortunately in my case it's neither of those things. it's just the sheer damage of a bruiser type monster at level 6. Even with provoking attacks, it's not like the party will chew fast enough through the 100hp of it before it starts dropping the party, and that's without accounting the "adds" it needs to be a moderate and not a "low" encounter.just to chime in that while i've been planning for a "boss" encounter for my level 4 party, i initially thought of putting a level 6 monster plus a level 3 monster (they are 5, so it would be 110 xp encounter, so just above "moderate") but after reviewing the numbers a bit it seems like even the level+2 by itself which is about "low" encounter (80xp and low is 75xp for 5 people) is probably enough to kill at least 1 and maybe tpk the party...
I think a very big issue here is whether the fight is telegraphed at all. A L+2 monster behind a big ominous door is not as likely to catch the players by surprise.
Another thing that matters is if the monster has some kind of "trick", like it being catastrophic to use piercing/slashing weapons against them. And maybe compounding that with AoOs or something else that makes it hard to change tactics mid-fight (remember, drawing a weapon provokes).
If the party comes into it using the right weapons/tactics and doesn't lose a round switching gears, that can make a big difference.
I'd really like to know what level 6 monster can TPK a level 4 party through sheer strength. I don't think there are many.
Unless your level 4 party is underequipped (Striking Runes add so much at level 4).| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
You know, I haven't really seen solo boss monsters as disproportionately dangerous, even at APL+3. They might feel more frustrating because players land less hits, but I think the hardest fights I have run were an APL+1 or +2 boss with minions. Those minions give the boss flanking, clog up routes to the boss, and generally give the boss space to drop spells or whatever ever fight tilting things they have.
I've certainly had a few grueling solo boss fights, but not enough to see the pattern other people see. The XP budget seems to work out about the same whether is it 3 equal level monsters, a dozen level -4, or a lone APL+3. The more monsters there are the more chances to roll a 20 there are. And at low levels a nat 20 is all it takes to put a PC in the red.
All anecdotal, of course, but then again these conversations almost always are.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
My OP merely suggests a general "soft" advice, that GMs should consider rating encounters including monsters that are higher level than the party, as more severe. No single rule can possibly take into account the entire variety of encounter make-ups, at all levels.
And again it is worth pointing out that the Beginner Box breaks Paizo's published encounter-building guidelines in its final encounter. And it is rightfully classified as a Severe encounter.
It would not really disrupt the system, simply to acknowledge that GMs can apply a "smell test" and don't have to adhere inflexibly to the encounter-building guidelines.
And this applies in other situations as well. If a high-level party casts a single AOE spell and neutralizes twelve L-4 mooks, perhaps it shouldn't count as a Severe encounter. And when I ran a Level 1 party against Hunting Spider recently, they nearly lost someone to its poison, and had rallied together to save their life. They used up healing potions and learned about the Treat Poison activity in the meantime. Did they deserve more XP than what, by the math, was a "Trivial" encounter? Hell yes, they did!
And all this is done behind the scenes anyway. The GM, after seeing how an encounter actually plays out at the table, can adjust their running XP total accordingly.
One could say that GMs should "lighten up" a bit about the math, and see the encounter-building system as a tool to make a fun adventures. But no need to feel shackled by it at the same time.
Paizo has accomplished an amazing thing in coming up with a workable system to create and balance encounters, and that accomplishment shouldn't be discounted or diminished. I'm just saying that there should be an acknowledgment that there is some art to the science of building encounters, and not to pretend or mislead anyone into thinking otherwise.
My OP merely suggests a general "soft" advice, that GMs should consider rating encounters including monsters that are higher level than the party, as more severe. No single rule can possibly take into account the entire variety of encounter make-ups, at all levels.
And again it is worth pointing out that the Beginner Box breaks Paizo's published encounter-building guidelines in its final encounter. And it is rightfully classified as a Severe encounter.
It would not really disrupt the system, simply to acknowledge that GMs can apply a "smell test" and don't have to adhere inflexibly to the encounter-building guidelines.
And this applies in other situations as well. If a high-level party casts a single AOE spell and neutralizes twelve L-4 mooks, perhaps it shouldn't count as a Severe encounter.
Paizo has accomplished an amazing thing in coming up with a workable system to create and balance encounters, and that accomplishment shouldn't be discounted or diminished. I'm just saying that there should be an acknowledgment that there is some art to the science of building encounters, and not to pretend or mislead anyone into thinking otherwise.
Oh, I totally agree with the art vs science thing. A lot hinges on specifics for composition, terrain, and what have you.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
But encounters aren't more difficult at low levels except for single boss encounters.That's not true.
I've found it to be true. The group I run for has never had trouble with a group of enemies at any level (I ran one game 1-8 and they're currently level 6 in Age of Ashes) and they aren't optimizers in any sense. I'd honestly be shocked if a group of level 2 wcvb adventurers are regularly being challenged by moderate encounters or dying to severe ones, assuming that they're populated with groups of enemies and not solo bosses.
The only time I've ever been in a group that had trouble with a group of enemies was when we accidentally combined two moderate encounters into one extreme one.
|
|
You know, I haven't really seen solo boss monsters as disproportionately dangerous, even at APL+3. They might feel more frustrating because players land less hits,
I think this part is underappreciated in current adventure writing. Just because you'll probably eventually win doesn't make it enjoyable.
At level 4, the L7 boss was extreme (even if not formally Extreme). At L10 the L13 rando was indeed more like Severe, but it was still not fun. Whereas other Severe encounters with the same XP budget but spread across 2-3 enemies were also challenging and sometimes hurt us just as much, but were more fun.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it has been said over and over again, but again
Party level + 2 | Moderate- or severe-threat boss
People keep ignoring this and hyper focusing on the Encounter budget table's XP budget instead of seeing them as two parts to a whole.
I would still like to see a strategy guide like product maybe with simplified core classes and ancestries like the beginner box. That also included new GM advice specifically when it came to running pathfinder 2e games, along side similar player focusing advice.
The strategy guide, despite being horribly named, was an awesome tool for introducing new players to PF1e. Give it a more apt name and market it as a lead in product that can be used to help GMs and players and I think it has a real place.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I know it has been said over and over again, but again
Party level + 2 | Moderate- or severe-threat bossPeople keep ignoring this and hyper focusing on the Encounter budget table's XP budget instead of seeing them as two parts to a whole.
I feel compelled to point out that the particular chart is vague and unhelpful. Boss is undefined and the nature of the difficulty swing is completely left to the imagination. Based on encounter XP and everything else in the encounter design section, I take it to mean this:
A +2 enemy is a moderate threat, or a severe threat when joined by lackeys (as in, is a literal boss).
But it seems no one else reads it that way.
I agree with this evaluation but i would like to point out that in the case of having a bigger party (say 6 people), the team will tend to punch quite a bit above their weight just by having more combo possibilities. I would not know how mutch but i would suppose that this will become more relevant as levels go up
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
Hit point attrition is only one aspect of winning a combat in PF2 though.
A level 3 monster against 4 level 1 PCs becomes very, very dangerous if it is capable of making 3 attacks, as even its third attack is often capable of wrecking a PC.
Action theft against a level 3 enemy is difficult for most level 1 parties because they don't have the diversity of options to target weak saves, and thus there is a good chance that action denier activities don't go off as planned at level 1 against higher level opposition (level 1 options usually require a success).
For example, I find level 1 parties really tend to struggle against brute type creatures. Tactically, the best action denying against Brutes at level 1 is usually movement related, and taking advantage of the environment, but as soon as one player moves forward and ends their turn next to the level 3 creature, then all the rest of the party's actions are pretty much irrelevant. The Brute is very likely to take the one player out, and then the number of actions that go into responding to that situation is more likely to get the rest of the party killed then meaningfully get their ally back on their feet and out of harms way.
Oozes really are guilty here.
Meanwhile, a party that doesn't play the brutes game will take out a level +2 or even level +3 enemy relatively easily, because they recognize the monsters glaring weakness and take advantage of it. Hit points play a much less important factor in this kind of encounter than tactics.
But then look at a monster like the river drake. Trying to out maneuver a river drake is going to see the party wasting action after action when the creature just needs to be hit hard by as much reliable damage dealing as possible. A party with 4 people casting magic missile is going to probably put that creature down in 1 round without anyone hitting the ground. whereas trying that against the Ooze is probably a TPK. Now very few parties build this way, but the river drake isn't easier to kill than the ooze, just because it has half as much HP, in fact, I bet more tactical parties struggle with the river drake than with the ooze, while charge and smash parties probably struggle mightily with both enemies.
HP advantage is one important aspect of a creature's strengths or weaknesses, but looking at monsters as a sack of HP to be depleted instead of a challenge to be overcome contributes very quickly to higher level monsters being so threatening to lower level parties.
At higher levels, the challenge appears to switch to more enemies rather than more powerful enemies because the lower level enemies are more likely to have action options that let them do bad things to the party with all 3 actions instead of 1 or 2.
Helping both GMs and players understand combats as being about matching strengths and weakness against each other and accomplishing goals instead of just killing everyone on the other side makes the "problem" of TPKs and overly difficult combats an almost non-issue in the game.
Unicore, I have to say, given most of your posts, your players must LOVE the recall knowledge action.
Always nice to see your analysis of monsters and tactics. Even when I disagree with you, it is an interesting read and clearly well thought out.
Unicore, I have to say, given most of your posts, your players must LOVE the recall knowledge action.
Always nice to see your analysis of monsters and tactics. Even when I disagree with you, it is an interesting read and clearly well thought out.
As a GM, I am very generous with successful recall knowledge checks, I try to work it into stories the players may have heard about the monster or experiences they might have seen in their backgrounds, but I try to do more than say, "it resists fire," on a success. As a result, my players recall knowledge often and prioritize recall knowledge skills for boosting.
More than anything, as a GM, I don't play solo monsters as Party TPK machines. Much like James Jacobs suggests, I find it much more fun to let powerful creatures act with arrogance and pride, or to have specific objectives that they care about and work towards accomplishing those goals, until they find themselves really in a jam.
With a drake, for example, that might be trying to take out 1 PC as quickly as possible, and then retreating with the body, only to run entirely if the party seems too capable of preventing the drake from making off with a meal. Playing this way, I don't feel too bad as a GM throwing level +3 creatures and even the very rare level +4 creature at the party.
In the sandboxy campaign I homebrew, this means leaving behind creatures that will be very satisfying to come back to later and thoroughly smash, or have the creature taken captive by a new more powerful force in the area and then allow that creature to even potentially become an ally for the party. Just keep switching it up so it doesn't feel like every encounter is against an impossible foe that is bound to get away. And be excited for the players when they put together a big plan that lets them punch over their weight class and win against a foe you thought might get away, reward them for it even.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Going into the future, it may be worth having a caveat spelled out in the rules that the GM should feel free to adjust the XP reward, if the party's actual experience matches the description of what a "Severe" or "Moderate" encounter is.
Don't we already have that in a variety of places in the Core book and GMG?
Just a couple examples:
"Though a published adventure is prewritten, it’s not set in stone. Changing the details of an adventure to suit your group isn’t just acceptable, it’s preferred! Use the backstories and predilections of the player characters to inform how you change the adventure. This can mean altering adversaries so they’re linked to the player characters, changing the setting to a place some of the player characters are from, or excising particular scenes if you know they won’t appeal to your players." pg. 280
"Trivial encounters don’t normally grant any XP, but you might decide to award the same XP as for a minor or moderate accomplishment for a trivial encounter that was important to the story, or for an encounter that became trivial because of the order in which the PCs encountered it in a nonlinear adventure." pg. 507
Providing more advice for GMs is always a good thing in my book, but at some point we also have to expect that folks are reading the rules and attempting to internalize them.