So, my team of 8 players noticed that fighting against big monsters is a bit frustrating for such a big party. Since I cannot bring myself to olny put encounters with 5+ enemies for time issues, martials tend to hit a bit rarely even with teamwork against big critters wich leads to feeling like the turn is mostly wasted after you miss with your first attack. The general challenge feels right, the monsters die as intended but the process of doing so proves to be rather tedious for them because of this all or nothing nature of martial that do one or two attacks per turn.
I shall try to decrease the armor class of big enemies (Level +1 or more) and rise their hp pools accordingly (I suppose every point of armor class taken away should be a 10% increase in hp).
What do you people think? Is this a recipe for doom and suffering or could it work? I would like to note once again that it will be an experiment, if it does not work it shall be dropped.
Reduce the AC (-1 to Dex) and increase the HP (+1 to Con) could be a good way to make the things more smoother.
But as you probably already notice this is one of many problems of playing with a big party. The best solution almost always will be add more opponents to balance. This will slowdown the encounters but will prevent the MMORPG big boss situation where the creature can easily take down a player in a single turn due the power difference and the very high critical chance while at same time the players need to do many attacks to take down the creature.
So if you want to do a big boss fight instead of make a big boss put a lot of minions the probably is the better solution. Once again I know this will slowdown the encounter (you can use troops instead to try to compensate this) but is lot easier to balance and more fair to players.
Reduce the AC (-1 to Dex) and increase the HP (+1 to Con) could be a good way to make the things more smoother.
But as you probably already notice this is one of many problems of playing with a big party. The best solution almost always will be add more opponents to balance. This will slowdown the encounters but will prevent the MMORPG big boss situation where the creature can easily take down a player in a single turn due the power difference and the very high critical chance while at same time the players need to do many attacks to take down the creature.
So if you want to do a big boss fight instead of make a big boss put a lot of minions the probably is the better solution. Once again I know this will slowdown the encounter (you can use troops instead to try to compensate this) but is lot easier to balance and more fair to players.
What can I say, have lots of friends xD
Anyway I already try to put 4 or 5 monsters in the encounter (that is the maximum I can manage with the time I have) but since my players are quite good at the game I have to put very dangerous ones (they can handle quite well 2 or even 3 severe encounters in a row, lot of teamwork) and it becomes a bit frustrating for the martials to see their turn gone if they miss.
You can always say it's one creature, but play it as two. Pick a boss of party level plus 2, double the hp. It takes two turns of 3 actions, each with their own map. It doesn't focus on one pc.
You know, this actually sounds quite cool, even if it adresses a different issue it sounds quite fun, I will try that!
I suggest to always increase the number of mooks, or making them elites, rather than making high level enemies elites.
You can also consider removing a high level enemy to get 2 lower ones.
Having a super elite BBEG might end up making the fight tedious rather than epic ( missing a lot, making spellcasters useless, etc... ).
Yeah, I Know. I always avoid putting enemies with lvl+3 unless it is an end chapter boss. But you know, with 8 players even 5 monsters can end up being quite high level to provide a good challenge. I found that troops help with the feeling of fighting more mooks but they really are big monsters in disguise you know xD
I shall try to decrease the armor class of big enemies (Level +1 or more) and rise their hp pools accordingly (I suppose every point of armor class taken away should be a 10% increase in hp).
Decreasing AC by one will increase the damage taken by AC-based attacks by 10%. But it won't affect anything that is not AC-based, decreasing the efficiency of casters mostly (Magic Missile being a classic of anti boss fights). It will also increase the effects of anything targetting AC despite not being damage, like some feats (all the Knockdown feats for example) and will also increase the chances of Critical Specialization to be triggered. So I fear your boss may end up massively debuffed and the casters quite frustrated by the reduction of their impact.
Also, even if you reduce the AC of the boss, ultimately, your martials will make the same number of attacks. And there's no way to hide that. They will hit more often, but their attacks will have less impact. I'm not sure the feeling will be very different (Starfinder has another paradigm where PCs hit a lot but monsters have truckload of hit points and it feels just boring).
I shall try to decrease the armor class of big enemies (Level +1 or more) and rise their hp pools accordingly (I suppose every point of armor class taken away should be a 10% increase in hp).Decreasing AC by one will increase the damage taken by AC-based attacks by 10%. But it won't affect anything that is not AC-based, decreasing the efficiency of casters mostly (Magic Missile being a classic of anti boss fights). It will also increase the effects of anything targetting AC despite not being damage, like some feats (all the Knockdown feats for example) and will also increase the chances of Critical Specialization to be triggered. So I fear your boss may end up massively debuffed and the casters quite frustrated by the reduction of their impact.
Also, even if you reduce the AC of the boss, ultimately, your martials will make the same number of attacks. And there's no way to hide that. They will hit more often, but their attacks will have less impact. I'm not sure the feeling will be very different (Starfinder has another paradigm where PCs hit a lot but monsters have truckload of hit points and it feels just boring).
As for the debuffs i feel like it is mostly ok, casters are actually feeling really good atm, their buffs and debuffs change fights and even their damage is not bad at all. The spells having good effects even on successful saves is what contriubutes the most I feel, a nice perk of the pf2e system.
As for the martial thing yes, that is exactly what I am trying to achieve. The feel bad sensation of hitting rarely is what is annoying them so I feel like this is the perfect change. No huge decrease in challenge but more consistency in the martial's performance. Just a little obviously, like 1-2 points of AC tops. Also I'm not too worried about the knockdown line and such, having enemies getting prone or so 10% more of the time sounds ok to me. I will regardless take note of this, to provide some data about the experiment in the future.Did not know about starfinder, never played it. I shall keep it in mind, thanks.
You can also reduce the Reflex too. As I said just change Dex -2 and Con +2 with all consequent effects (-1 to AC, Reflex, Finesse Attacks (except if the Str is greater) while +1 per level to HP and +1 to Fort).
This will make Refl spells and manuvers (like Trip and many blasts) easier while increase the HP and make Fort a bit stronger (what make some debuffs and grapple a little more harder).
One doubt. Your players are remembering that they can prone and grab the opponent? Usually when you have many martials around a single opponent even it being stronger they can CC it pretty easily due the many trials that they have. A prone and grabbled opponent is very penalized by having all manipulate and move actions restricted (what prevents casting and many special activities) and -2 to attack difficulties it's attacks, Escape is an "attack" and suffers from this too (and enforces a MAP and an action usage over it). Also AoO martial take an good benefit from proned opponents when they trying to stand up.
Usually when facing a single opponent just Strike, Strike and Strike is the worse way to deal with it in PF2.
You can also reduce the Reflex too. As I said just change Dex -2 and Con +2 with all consequent effects (-1 to AC, Reflex, Finesse Attacks (except if the Str is greater) while +1 per level to HP and +1 to Fort).
This will make Refl spells and manuvers (like Trip and many blasts) easier while increase the HP and make Fort a bit stronger (what make some debuffs and grapple a little more harder).
One doubt. Your players are remembering that they can prone and grab the opponent? Usually when you have many martials around a single opponent even it being stronger they can CC it pretty easily due the many trials that they have. A prone and grabbled opponent is very penalized by having all manipulate and move actions restricted (what prevents casting and many special activities) and -2 to attack difficulties it's attacks, Escape is an "attack" and suffers from this too (and enforces a MAP and an action usage over it). Also AoO martial take an good benefit from proned opponents when they trying to stand up.
Usually when facing a single opponent just Strike, Strike and Strike is the worse way to deal with it in PF2.
They would if I let them for sure. Usually the other monsters (my fights usually have at least 2 or 3 at the same time) will help the locked down buddy unless they are too dumb or just do not care.
I have 7 players and the party is often at 8 PCs because I add temporary playtest characters to the party.
In theory by XP alone the party could handle a level+4 adversary since that would be a Moderate-Threat encounter. However, the intense damage from such a monster's attacks would greatly harm the first party member it attacks, so it would not feel like a mere Moderate Threat. I don't use such creatures. I limit myself to level+3 adversaries.
For example, at 16th-level the party fought a 19th-level Primal Bandersnatch. That was a long battle spread across two sessions because most of the party used ranged attacks to avoid its Confusing Gaze aura. It was not intended as a boss battle, but borrowing the level+3 PF2 Primal Bandersnatch from Archives of Nethys was easier for me than porting the level+1 Bandersnatch in the module from PF1 rules to PF2 rules. In an earlier module I increased the challenge of a unique boss character from 15th level to 17th level against the party at 14th level, but balance was tricky so I asked for advice: Balancing a Seventeenth-Level Medusa. That boss was defeated unexpectedly quickly by failing a save when the party ambushed her.
Combat against four level-1 enemies takes as long as combat against one level+3 enemy. Running lots of enemies is a little tougher on us GMs, but it does not create a greater slowdown.
We simply put up with long, slow combat. This campaign has already lasted 3 and a half years when my PF1 campaigns with only 5 players lasted only 2 and a half years. The module Assault on Longshadow had a gigantic battle of a full-sized army against the city of Longshadow. The writer cleverly set it up as usually the city militia would fight the army off-scene with the PCs showing up only for key battles. However, my players are very hands-on, so instead I gave each of the seven players one militia archery unit to control in addition to their characters and let the players run the bulk of defensive side of the battle. For a few weeks we managed only two turns of battle during the entire 3-hour game session. But their careful management led to glorious tactics and zero deaths on the defenders' side for a maximum-XP Great Victory.
I asked my players for advice. The player of the archer ranger with Flurry Edge pointed out that she can make four Strikes per turn with only a small multiple attack penalty. The rogues make their opponents flat-footed and frightened to reduce their AC (the ranger loves this, too). The champion is satisfied to defend her allies rather than deal frequent damage: she occasionally stabs with a shortsword but always raises her shield. The martial players feel that the spellcaster players are worse off, because the spellcasters get only one spell per turn, so it is more frustrating when it fails.
There's a lot to chew on up there (with "avoid focus fire" probably being most important since taking damage for 8 is far worse than taking it for 4), yet I'm going to slip in a bit of "big party" advice I seldom see: increase the map size.
The simplest ways are to either double everything, as if the map were at a different scale though beware that might emphasize ranged combat unintentionally (though with that many PCs, that might be the best way for them to participate anyway); or one could add +5' to width, especially corridors & choke points. Speaking of which, adding more paths can help often, like if a room you're going to pack w/ double the enemies has only one entrance, doubling the width might not be enough so you add another door, maybe even a second corridor or make the corridor an empty room the enemies can spill out into. (Funnily enough, a lot of old D&D maps already feature this sort of layout since modules were built for bigger groups).
Which reminds me of another trick I've used w/ published adventures & a big party. I'd combine combats so that the front 4 might trigger a regular combat meant for 4 while a nearby "normal encounter for 4" reacts and swoops in on the back 4. One of the most fun battles had three fronts at a nexus of corridors, though most enemies came from one barracks. The pairs & trios caught together worked in new ways unseen when part of a big glob.
Oh, shoot, now I have something else too; beware increasing the amount of AoEs, auras, etc., since they have so much more impact already. Which of course means adding some can be a good way to boost a group that would be hard-pressed to threaten so many PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
There's a lot to chew on up there (with "avoid focus fire" probably being most important since taking damage for 8 is far worse than taking it for 4), yet I'm going to slip in a bit of "big party" advice I seldom see: increase the map size.
The simplest ways are to either double everything, as if the map were at a different scale though beware that might emphasize ranged combat unintentionally (though with that many PCs, that might be the best way for them to participate anyway); or one could add +5' to width, especially corridors & choke points. Speaking of which, adding more paths can help often, like if a room you're going to pack w/ double the enemies has only one entrance, doubling the width might not be enough so you add another door, maybe even a second corridor or make the corridor an empty room the enemies can spill out into. (Funnily enough, a lot of old D&D maps already feature this sort of layout since modules were built for bigger groups).
Which reminds me of another trick I've used w/ published adventures & a big party. I'd combine combats so that the front 4 might trigger a regular combat meant for 4 while a nearby "normal encounter for 4" reacts and swoops in on the back 4. One of the most fun battles had three fronts at a nexus of corridors, though most enemies came from one barracks. The pairs & trios caught together worked in new ways unseen when part of a big glob.
Oh, shoot, now I have something else too; beware increasing the amount of AoEs, auras, etc., since they have so much more impact already. Which of course means adding some can be a good way to boost a group that would be hard-pressed to threaten so many PCs.
Agreed, thats like the first thing i noticed. Since i run a homebrew i stopped stealing maps from google images and subscribed to inkarnate. It is SO worth it it is not even fun.
I can also testify that the fronts battle type is a very good advice for new DMs, really gives a nice feeling.As for the focus fire yeah, avoiding it helps keeping people alive. IF you want to. :)
I noticed the original question also appearing on the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Facebook group. I was surprised that in that forum several people said, "That's way too many players," and "I would run it as 2 groups of 4."
I don't need to add to an argument there, because the OP's players are posting defending the play group. Nevertheless, let me reassure RaptorJesues here. Play Pathfinder the way that you and your players want to. Don't bind yourself to restrictions just because many other people like those restrictions. Pathfinder is flexible enough to handle extra-large parties.
My own players grew from 4 to 7 because the players wanted to play with the other players. Players 5 and 7 are my adult daughters who like playing along with their mother and me. Player 6 is an online friend of one of the original four and I have never met him face to face. Splitting the group would not be as fun.
I noticed the original question also appearing on the Pathfinder 2nd Edition Facebook group. I was surprised that in that forum several people said, "That's way too many players," and "I would run it as 2 groups of 4."
I don't need to add to an argument there, because the OP's players are posting defending the play group. Nevertheless, let me reassure RaptorJesues here. Play Pathfinder the way that you and your players want to. Don't bind yourself to restrictions just because many other people like those restrictions. Pathfinder is flexible enough to handle extra-large parties.
My own players grew from 4 to 7 because the players wanted to play with the other players. Players 5 and 7 are my adult daughters who like playing along with their mother and me. Player 6 is an online friend of one of the original four and I have never met him face to face. Splitting the group would not be as fun.
Thanks, that actually means a lot. I feel like the facebook group got the wrong message, a big party has literally never been a problem for me and my group, only generated the minor annoyance presented in this post. It obviously goes a bit slower in combat than a small group but I can still fit one or two combats per 3 hours session so it is not too bad.
As the saying goes, you never split the party (unless it's fun)
Being honest for players perspective a big party that can be split can be very interesting and fun if they don't matter patiently to way their turn. Because this is one if not the biggest restriction that normal 4 players party have, usually slip is too risky option. But with such a big party the players can make split strategy with a more balanced and safety parties and also can merge when needed.
Being honest for players perspective a big party that can be split can be very interesting and fun if they don't matter patiently to way their turn. Because this is one if not the biggest restriction that normal 4 players party have, usually slip is too risky option. But with such a big party the players can make split strategy with a more balanced and safety parties and also can merge when needed.
You mean split in combat or in general? Because I did both to great effect once or twice
In general.
Sometimes my players think in divide during adventure but usually avoid this with afraid to be taken in a complicated situation without backup. With a big party (6 or more) divide the party in 2 to explore 2 diferent parts or to invade a stronghold of something like this with one group distracting and other entering stealthily.
I'm not talkin about doing this everytime instead it's a prety rare situations but there are situations that my players stop and beging to discuss "We just enter? Isn't better to investigate first? Everyone will enter? Isn't better to just more stealth players to enter alone? And if we distract the guard to facilitate?". Usually this kind of discussion end in everyone kicking the door or everyone trying to be stealty but they rarely choose to split due the afraid of be overwhelmed.
In such big party your players don't think more easily in any split strategy?