I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard. If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard. If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?
At low level, the Barbarian is certainly much more of a threat, so monsters should not come to the Wizard that often. Also, it's quite the point for the melee martials to protect the casters in the back line.
Now, first level is a bit extreme, and your Wizard went a lot into the extreme (6 hp ancestry with a penalty to Constitution) while your Dwarf Barbarian went the complete other way. In general, fragile casters have around 15 hps and melee martials have around 20 hps. The difference is much smaller.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Both of them can get to dying 3 before being healed back or doing a heroic recovery. So the hp is mainly important to determine the first time they go down.
|
I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard. If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?At low level, the Barbarian is certainly much more of a threat, so monsters should not come to the Wizard that often. Also, it's quite the point for the melee martials to protect the casters in the back line.
Now, first level is a bit extreme, and your Wizard went a lot into the extreme (6 hp ancestry with a penalty to Constitution) while your Dwarf Barbarian went the complete other way. In general, fragile casters have around 15 hps and melee martials have around 20 hps. The difference is much smaller.
I have found my Elf Magus (both of them really) using standard Elf stats and going Strength Based end up having around 14-16 HP. Is this ok?
|
I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard.
In practice, you tend to see that wizard putting some ability boosts into constitution. I've certainly seem some dwarf barbarians reveling in the ability to have a ton of HP though.
The thing is, the barbarian also has to be on the front line to be at his best. So when the monster's turn comes up, the barbarian is right next to him while the wizard is probably trying to stay a bit at a distance. Also, when you're not in a wide open field, the fragile characters will probably be trying to position so enemies can't easily walk past the frontline characters to get to them. So the result is that the barbarian gets attacked a lot more.
If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?
In some other RPGs it's proverbial to kill the mage first. Certainly in Pathfinder 1st edition. But in second edition? A level 1 giant instinct barbarian can hit for 2d6+10 damage with a greatsword. The wizard's hydraulic push spell does 3d6 damage. The barbarian's attack takes 1 action, the wizard's 2. So the barbarian could be trying to hit you multiple times per turn.
Since the wizard is probably harder to get to, and the barbarian does obscene amounts of damage, I dunno if it's really the intelligent thing these days to fixate on the caster.
Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1?
Yes. 25 to 12 is a significantly tighter ratio than 15 to 4. Things are probably more dangerous overall (GM dependent, of course) but first level health feels like it is in a good spot. Lot of things changed and some of these changes stand out as problematic until you get a sense for how everything else changed around them.
A level 1 giant instinct barbarian can hit for 2d6+10 damage with a greatsword.
What witchcraft is this? Bittersweet nostalgia or a simple anachronism perhaps.
|
|
A level 1 giant instinct barbarian can hit for 2d6+10 damage with a greatsword.What witchcraft is this? Bittersweet nostalgia or a simple anachronism perhaps.
1d12 from the greatsword (not 2d6, I'm being senile)
+4 from strength 18+6 from rage (using the oversized weapon giant instinct barbarians are famous for)
So that's not really a particularly unusual or clever build, you're basically following the signposts the system laid out for your class.
Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1?Yes. 25 to 12 is a significantly tighter ratio than 15 to 4. Things are probably more dangerous overall (GM dependent, of course) but first level health feels like it is in a good spot. Lot of things changed and some of these changes stand out as problematic until you get a sense for how everything else changed around them.
A level 1 giant instinct barbarian can hit for 2d6+10 damage with a greatsword.What witchcraft is this? Bittersweet nostalgia or a simple anachronism perhaps.
The inaccuracy that I see is that the Giant Instinct Barbarian would actually be dealing 2d12+10 due to using a greatsword and having that Wizard cast Magic Weapon on it.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The other thing to consider when comparing character survivability is the difference in AC.
Barbarians have notoriously low AC - so while they have an excessive amount of HP, they also burn through it at a rapid rate due to taking hits and crits more often.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
1d12 from the greatsword (not 2d6, I'm being senile)
All I was talking about. Senile is too harsh, anachronisms can be endearing.
I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard. If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?At low level, the Barbarian is certainly much more of a threat, so monsters should not come to the Wizard that often. Also, it's quite the point for the melee martials to protect the casters in the back line.
Now, first level is a bit extreme, and your Wizard went a lot into the extreme (6 hp ancestry with a penalty to Constitution) while your Dwarf Barbarian went the complete other way. In general, fragile casters have around 15 hps and melee martials have around 20 hps. The difference is much smaller.
I believe an elven wizard is a pretty common build. Unless the player wants to sacrifice some of their Int and Dex, it seems pretty rational they would only spend one boost to recover their flaw in con. Not what I would really consider extreme. The dwarf barbarian also would be a common build and those characters would not need to sacrifice their str to get a 16 con through boosts so I assume most players would arrive at that conclusion also. Neither player is going out of their way to subvert or boost their hp-these are just really how the numbers work out if you have these two ancestry-class combinations. These are also the archetypal choices for class when it comes to these ancestries (possibly ftr for dwarf but that does not do a lot to alleviate the problem) so I don't see how having these characters in the same party would be unusual either.
I believe an elven wizard is a pretty common build. Unless the player wants to sacrifice some of their Int and Dex, it seems pretty rational they would only spend one boost to recover their flaw in con. Not what I would really consider extreme. The dwarf barbarian also would be a common build and those characters would not need to sacrifice their str to get a 16 con through boosts so I assume most players would arrive at that conclusion also. Neither player is going out of their way to subvert or boost their hp-these are just really how the numbers work out if you have these two ancestry-class combinations.
No, there is nothing wrong with your math or the character build strategies that you are using.
But also no, the difference in HP isn't that scary. The two characters can indeed adventure together without too many problems.
If anything, even with the higher HP, Barbarians are often considered more of a glass cannon than Wizards are because of the difference in AC and defensive options.
Barbarians have -1 AC while Raging. Giant Instinct Barbarians have an additional -1 AC while using their giant weapon.
Wizards have Shield cantrip, Mage Armor, Shattering Gem, Longstrider, and the ability to be effective from 30 feet away.
No, a melee Wizard isn't going to work well at level 1. But if the GM is having all of the enemies ignore the Barbarian to focus fire on the Wizard, the Wizard will still survive the battle because they won't finish dying before the Barbarian obliterates all of the enemies and someone uses Stabilize or First Aid.
I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard.In practice, you tend to see that wizard putting some ability boosts into constitution. I've certainly seem some dwarf barbarians reveling in the ability to have a ton of HP though.
The thing is, the barbarian also has to be on the front line to be at his best. So when the monster's turn comes up, the barbarian is right next to him while the wizard is probably trying to stay a bit at a distance. Also, when you're not in a wide open field, the fragile characters will probably be trying to position so enemies can't easily walk past the frontline characters to get to them. So the result is that the barbarian gets attacked a lot more.
If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?In some other RPGs it's proverbial to kill the mage first. Certainly in Pathfinder 1st edition. But in second edition? A level 1 giant instinct barbarian can hit for 2d6+10 damage with a greatsword. The wizard's hydraulic push spell does 3d6 damage. The barbarian's attack takes 1 action, the wizard's 2. So the barbarian could be trying to hit you multiple times per turn.
Since the wizard is probably harder to get to, and the barbarian does obscene amounts of damage, I dunno if it's really the intelligent thing these days to fixate on the caster.
Okay, so it seems the 12-14 hp for the elven wizard won't cause them to constantly down for the count and start dying from one ranged attack. That's good to hear. Also, my intelligent monsters won't appear to be acting out of character if they don't focus on them. Thank you for the clarification.
Okay, so it seems the 12-14 hp for the elven wizard won't cause them to constantly down for the count and start dying from one ranged attack. That's good to hear.
That does also depend on relative level.
At level 1, a standard enemy for their level would be a level 0 or level -1 creature. Those should be doing about 3 or 4 points of damage per hit. And will have an attack bonus of about +6 to +8.
If everyone is getting armor/dex to the baseline of armor + dex = 5, then they should have an AC of 18. The Wizard may be a couple points lower than that because they don't have armor proficiency and may not have max Dex and Mage Armor. The Barbarian will almost certainly be a point or two below that because of Barbarian mechanics lowering their AC. But even with the enemies needing to only roll an 8 to hit, they still aren't likely to drop the Wizard in one round unless there are 3 or 4 of them attacking the Wizard at once and they roll high on attack rolls and damage.
Now, when dealing with miniboss enemies at level 1 or level 2, the numbers change a bit. Now they have an attack bonus in the +7 to +11 range and do around 6 to 9 damage per hit. They only need to roll a 15+ to crit the Wizard and can do enough damage with that crit to one-shot them.
And of course final boss enemies at level 3+ are going to blow the Wizard off the table by sneezing at them. But they will do the same to the level 1 Barbarian too, so...
Hit point disparity will always seem greater at level 1 due to one-time ancestry hit points.
Playing devil's advocate, that Wizard's gonna drop. But as mentioned above, that doesn't mean they'll die, and out-of-combat healing will bring them back to full because yeah, Medicine is a party requirement. And at 1st, stringing enemies in a rapid series is vicious so there should be time.
But won't the Wizard drop again?
As devil's advocate, yes. Any 6 hit point class by default will struggle with survival in a tougher game. I would advise a newer player against playing one unless truly dedicated to the notion. But note that I added "by default", as in if you play better than an AI, and your team recognizes tactics, you should be able to get by. Which is why I'd lead that newer player through tactical examples before the first combat. I disagree with 30' being a safe default distance.
Ray of Frost or the Reach feat can keep you more than two Strides from most enemies, though this math changes if teammates trip enemies, have AoOs to punish them, can wall them off, etc. Because yeah, who knows how enemies might react to magic, and if they can launch their first attack on you, they can whittle you down fast.
As for ranged combat, which you mentioned, that is particularly brutal. Typical bows have the Deadly trait, meaning there's lot of damage variance. It's Agnincourt unless you find cover, though that's true for the martials too. (And too much distance is an outright threat boost, environmental advantage.) Hopefully the GM/designer is playing fair, though what's fair to the party might not be fair to its weakest link. So yeah, I'd lay low, Taking Cover or casting Shield if not outright getting out of line of sight.
I'm reminded of a playtest fight where too many parties were TPKed/PPKed because GMs ran the (basic & kinda pushover) goblins as if ready for battle, bows out and staying at a distance. They were supposed to be working (no weapons out), arguing (so party's aware), and eager to investigate intrusions (so move forward, likely draw melee weapon).
Makes for huge difference.
And yeah, them Barbarians can soak up a lot of damage, and do, arguably to the point where their "by default" tactics will get them killed too. Ex. Rage, Stride, Strike = focus of all enemies if poorly timed. IMO the Champion w/ Shield Block & Lay on Hands represents the more extreme other end of survival. And a 6 hit pointer can survive pretty well near them, even if that means being closer to the front.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you everyone for the responses. My players aren't power gamers and I see enough evidence here of the fragility of 6 hp ancestries that I must say I'm as concerned as I thought I would be about them. I will house rule the 6 hp ancestries to 8 hp in my game. I'm not saying that 6 hp for these ancestries is wrong, but 8 hp may be more correct for my players because they are not optimizers.
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
I am looking into running Pathfinder 2e for the first time. I have game mastered for 30+ years so I am just asking this question just to tap into the knowledge of GMs with experience with this set of rules. Can the game really balance having a dwarf barb with 25 hp and an elf wizard with 12 hp in the same party at level 1? It seems if the monsters are strong enough to drop the dwarf they will just steamroll the wizard. If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?
One of the most basic rules of gameplay is that the party needs to keep foes out of the 'glass-cannon' caster's face: Unless you are fighting in a wide open plain, this is usually fairly simple for a group to do.
Also, first level casters don't typically have spells that make them blatantly more threatening than the martials: Casters are a lot weaker than they have been in prior editions, and even PF1/D&D3.x casters weren't typically that powerful at low levels...
Thank you everyone for the responses. My players aren't power gamers and I see enough evidence here of the fragility of 6 hp ancestries that I must say I'm as concerned as I thought I would be about them. I will house rule the 6 hp ancestries to 8 hp in my game. I'm not saying that 6 hp for these ancestries is wrong, but 8 hp may be more correct for my players because they are not optimizers.
You seem to be seriously overvaluing two measly hit points.
I would strongly recommend actually running the game as written before adding your own house rules so you can see how it all actually works in practice: It often doesn't actually play out quite the way you expect...
If the monsters have decent intelligence and the wizard casts a highly damaging spell they should also come after him first, right?******************************
Assuming a party of 4 characters, it can happen that intelligent enemies try to push towards the spellcaster or the healer ( as the pc can do ), but the rest of the party should take care of them./QUOTE]******************************
PF2E is not D&D. Priority targets should shift.
At level 1 and for most levels there after the smart tactic for enemies is to ensure the casters cannot get off AoE hits safely without also hitting their allies - but to otherwise focus on the melee martials.
Caster single target damage will be poor and limited, but their AoE will do a lot of harm if they can use it.
Martials on the other hand will be able to one-shot enemies that often cannot one-shot them back. Every turn your smart enemy leaves a martial alone is a turn they might lose one ally.
Once the martials are gone, the casters can be dealt with fairly easily by spreading out to limit their ability to AoE.
The PCs on the other hand, should be moving to cluster the enemy into groups where the PCs can be on the edge of but outside of AoE. This actually means NOT flanking... So you need to weigh those two interests against each other - if you flank, your casters can only use their weakest attacks.
(This is the bane of my existence - in a party with 3 melee martials that will often stack around one side of the enemy - so they both don't flank but also prevent AoE.)
Sometimes you will want to move away, to strategic spots, to lure enemies into positions that can take advantage of either flanking or caster AoE.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Yeah, two more hit points really isn't going to make that big a difference. Also, elves make up for it by having higher than average speed and have some of the best feat and heritage options in the game, so it feels weird to give them a buff, even a minor one. Are you going to give the dwarf more speed?
An easier thing to do is just be cognizant of the challenge your players can handle when designing encounters or deciding on enemy tactics. Specifically, avoid creatures and hazards that can deal 24 or more damage in one critical hit. Massive damage is the biggest threat of actual level 1 character death.
I expect I'm not going to like the elf and kobold starting 3 hp down from average because of starting not only with 6 ancestry hp but also a flaw in con. Heaven help me if someone wants to play one of those ancestries as a front line combatant. I'm going to be walking on eggshells. I'll see if it works but I'm suspecting this is a flaw from the fact that when designers playtest a system they usually get accomplished players with quite a bit of experience. These playtesters tend to minimize weaknesses better than casual players because they may have a background in wargaming or simply understand better how to use speed and positioning to their advantage.
They're only 2hp behind ever. Your typical wizard is running 10/16/12/18/12/10 which is only 2hp behind on a 6hp ancestry vs 8hp ancestry. The con flaw is cancelled at the ancestry step and boosted to 12 at the 4free step or you use the alternative free/free to begin with.
And even at 6hp elf is basically the best ancestry in the game at the moment unless you're exploiting one of the ancestries with three boosts and a non-save flaw like halfling for certain builds. It's really no big deal.
| 6 people marked this as a favorite. |
I expect I'm not going to like the elf and kobold starting 3 hp down from average because of starting not only with 6 ancestry hp but also a flaw in con. Heaven help me if someone wants to play one of those ancestries as a front line combatant.
I would note the recent change to the rules that allows any ancestry to opt to use the Human's free +2/+2 ability boosts instead of their +2/+2/+2/-2 array. No ancestry has to start with a penalty to their Con score.
In fact the biggest advantage you can get in a fight is for monsters to ignore the front-line fighters and go after soft targets like Wizards, you can actually win fights that are much higher level than normal when such a strategy is employed.
*********************
This becomes even more true at low levels where the caster can just have shield up - even though you can't recast it once it's burned, one pivotal use of it to keep up can be all it takes.
The monsters all run for the caster, and the martials waste them on the journey.
My group is level 4 right now and this is still holding for us. Last session a pack of undead swamped our cleric and ignored the others. I was on the other side of a door and for most of the fight one of the martials was blocking the door so I just spammed electric arc (that cantrip really is handy - especially for the level range where spell attack lags way behind martial attack, as it doesn't need an attack roll - as an occult caster I had to use adopted cantrip feat to get it - which is one reason I like human casters). The cleric just stayed alive - I think he must have been out of spells because normally in this moment he'd do an AoE heal which hurts undead.
The martials were doing 20-30+ damage per hit and one shotting things while being ignored.
5 of us vs. 8+ of them, maybe only a 4 round fight.
If they'd flanked some martials we probably would have had a few people writing up new PCs.
Now in fights where it's been me getting swamped - shield would carry me through one more round of the fight. But I tend to stay as far back as I can so unless they have range, they're wasting a lot of actions reaching me.
Okay, so it seems the 12-14 hp for the elven wizard won't cause them to constantly down for the count and start dying from one ranged attack. That's good to hear. Also, my intelligent monsters won't appear to be acting out of character if they don't focus on them. Thank you for the clarification.
There are situations where the 14-hp elven wizard would go down from one ranged attack in a level-appropriate encounter. For example, the party could be walking down a road toward a place not on their maps. This is called hexploration because the unknown territory being explored is traditionally drawn on a hexagonal grid. A Hobogoblin Archer in a watchtower overlooking the road spots the party. Old Pathfinder 1st Edition lore is that hobgoblins after a war with elves developed a hatred for elven wizards, so the elf in explorer's clothes rather than armor will be his first target. Due to the hobgoblin's Crossbow Precision ability, the crossbow bolt will deal 2d8+2 damage. That averages 11 damage, so 14 damage is merely a high damage roll. The wizard could go down in one shot before the party even realized they are in danger ("Barbarian, make a perception check" Failure. "Wizard, make a perception check." Failure. "The wizard is hit by a crossbow bolt for 9 piercing damage and 5 precision damage.")
However, that begins the exploration of that hex with a Severe-Threat encounter. A GM should avoid that for inexperienced players, because most players start with less-than-optimal tactics when their characters are attacked by an unknown enemy. Furthermore, having a 4th-level Hobgoblin Archer standing guard duty is logical only when the hobgoblin fortress ahead is loaded with 4th-level soldiers. Further encounters with that army would be suicidal.
With experienced players, this would be a reasonable warning that the party should immediately depart the area and not return before their characters reach 5th level. The party would immediately drag the wizard to full cover (perhaps the strong dwarven barbarian would sling the wizard over his shoulder), heal him the next round, and sneak away out of sight of the watchtower.
go down from one ranged attack in a level-appropriate encounter.
a Severe-Threat encounter.
Further encounters with that army would be suicidal.
reasonable warning that the party should immediately depart the area and not return before their characters reach 5th level.
One of these things is not like the others...
One of these things is not like the others...go down from one ranged attack in a level-appropriate encounter.
a Severe-Threat encounter.
Further encounters with that army would be suicidal.
reasonable warning that the party should immediately depart the area and not return before their characters reach 5th level.
The first two match, because a Severe-Threat encounter is level appropriate.
The third one does not match, because a suicidal encounter is not level appropriate. However, that is not the encounter the party is in. Instead, the level-appropriate encounter would serve as a warning to my experienced players that the party ought to turn back. They know how to read my clues, which are not subtle.
An encounter with a single 4th-level creature is appropriate for a 1st-level party, though typically it would be a forewarned boss battle rather than an unexpected encounter with an archer on guard duty. Since Ldragon1020 said, "start dying from one ranged attack," I decided to pick a common creature with a powerful ranged attack from the Bestiary. And I gave the archer a common job to emphasize that he was not special.
I suppose I could have set up the Hobgoblin Archer as a boss. Maybe he could lead a band of 0th-level goblins who called him "the arrowman" as a hint. But then I would have had to explain that the party ignored the forewarning, which is a little insulting.
The hit-point disparity that Ldragon1020 fears is mitigated by proper teamwork. The high-hp barbarian taking the hits so that the low-hp wizard does not take them is proper teamwork. On the other hand, the GM should occasionally throw a situation at the party that forces them to invent new tactics. That makes the game more exciting. For example, a high-powered archer can pick his targets and will fear a wizard, a class known for its ranged attacks,more than a barbarian. The wizard will take the hit.
And if the barbarian cannot protect the wizard, then another method, such as a Heal spell from a cleric, must be found to protect the wizard. Many solutions exist, and a single solution is not sufficient, because variety is fun.
|
|
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically it's a level-appropriate encounter, by definition of tables 10-1 and 10-2.
However, in practice, in the experience of most people, it's really not.
* At level 1, it's questionable whether any Severe encounter is appropriate. Maybe if it's really foreshadowed and the party has some way to prepare for it, but even then it's harsh. The party really does get a bit more powerful as they level up, compared to the speed at which the enemy also levels up. But one effect of that is that at level 1, you're a bit weaker than those tables suggest.
* Level +3 enemies are technically valid severe bosses, but in practice, they're extremely harsh. Yes, the difference between level+2 and level+3 is really that big. Even at higher levels, these tend to be the encounters that feel unfair, stacked against the players not in a fun/dramatic way, but just with sheer high numbers. Using the budget for a severe encounter on a level+2 boss with a level+0 lieutenant still creates a severely difficult fight, but much more enjoyable.
* Powerful archer in a tower is worth a bump to the encounter's difficulty estimate all on its own. If you have to do difficult stuff like climb walls or bash down doors to even get near the archer (and have to spend actions on sheathing/drawing weapons again, be flat-footed while climbing, risk falling damage etc), that is going to push the encounter to extreme.
Surely an archer wouldn't just stand in an open field, right? Agree, but if you put the archer in a good position like that, use a level lower archer. Or make the position not quite as good - make it a hilltop with some difficult terrain but not quite locked doors and walls that need climb checks.
a high-powered archer can pick his targets and will fear a wizard, a class known for its ranged attacks,more than a barbarian. The wizard will take the hit.
********************************************
I would still rate the Barbarian as a greater threat.
Casters excel at AoE but not at single target. If the archer is providing cover fire for pack of martials that cannot get out of bad positioning then sure, take out the wizard.
But often you can neutralize casters by simply not standing in a tightly packed clump, or by only doing so when you're mixed in with the enemy.
If you force a caster to use single target spells then at level 1 they're not much more deadly than a commoner that yells insults. If the commoner's "Yo Momma" jokes count as using demoralize repeatedly they might even be a greater threat. ;)
But the barbarian can rip through your side. If they're using a sweep weapon they can do devastating multi-attack hits. If they can close the gap to your as the archer it's game over for the archer.
The deadliest thing the Wizard can pull at level 1 is magic missile. A spell that from level 2 through 4 does not yet scale and so becomes trivial in impact. At level 1, they will be unlikely to have more than 1 cast of it. If they spent both spell slots on it then they're lacking any other utility. Their smart play is to not even slot it and just rely on Electric Arc and some AoE cantrips.
The Wizard should be spending their combat energy looking for opportunities to AoE things, and having the Electric Arc as a backup for when AoE cannot be used. It's a smarter cast than even a 3-action Magic Missile because they can then use action 3 to get some cover, cast shield, or move somewhere.
If they know the ONLY encounter they will face in the coming day is a single target fight, then they will prepare magic missile. But they're not likely to have this expectation. Better to keep slots for utility.
I'd go for spending those 2 spell slots on Mage Armor and Gravitational Pull if I didn't know what the upcoming day would bring. Day long AC bonus and a 'vacuum in friends that have been grappled' (Friendfetch is better but is uncommon and specific to AP 169 so many GMs might not have it on their allowed list).
|
|
18 armor class is the standard for a lvl 1 combatant ( 10 + 1 (lvl) +2(prof) +5(light/medium armor ), so it's perfectly balanced.
As for the 15 hp, i think you are probably referring to a hybrid one ( a non 10 hp/ class ), which is either a skill monkey or the magus, that are meant to be something else in addition to dps, and also from a small ancestry (6hp) or a fragile one ( elf? ).
Seems quite balance to me.
If they feel they might end up beaten, they can consider getting a shield for the earlier levels ( +2 AC is absurd in term of DR ).
Yeah Elf Magus in Breastplate definitely preparing Shield Spell.
|
|
Just a reminder that 'Severe-threat' encounters are supposed to be, well, severe:
Source Core Rulebook pg. 488 4.0
...
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.
...
While technically 'level appropriate' they are supposed to be the climactic final battle of the story rather than a random encounter, so you probably shouldn't see one before levels 3-4 and PCs being knocked unconscious in such a fight should be fairly normal...
Just a reminder that 'Severe-threat' encounters are supposed to be, well, severe:While technically 'level appropriate' they are supposed to be the climactic final battle of the story rather than a random encounter, so you probably shouldn't see one before levels 3-4 and PCs being knocked unconscious in such a fight should be fairly normal...Source Core Rulebook pg. 488 4.0
...
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.
...
Paizo APs don't really follow this rule though, so if OP (or anyone reading this thread) looks for published adventures they might be in for a rude awakening.
|
|
Just a reminder that 'Severe-threat' encounters are supposed to be, well, severe:Paizo APs don't really follow this rule though, so if OP (or anyone reading this thread) looks for published adventures they might be in for a rude awakening.While technically 'level appropriate' they are supposed to be the climactic final battle of the story rather than a random encounter, so you probably shouldn't see one before levels 3-4 and PCs being knocked unconscious in such a fight should be fairly normal...Source Core Rulebook pg. 488 4.0
...
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.
...
They might be looking at the guidelines in the GMG instead: here. Although if you divide the number of severe encounters by the number of suggested sessions, you end up with 1-2 per session for most templates.
Just a reminder that 'Severe-threat' encounters are supposed to be, well, severe:Paizo APs don't really follow this rule though, so if OP (or anyone reading this thread) looks for published adventures they might be in for a rude awakening.While technically 'level appropriate' they are supposed to be the climactic final battle of the story rather than a random encounter, so you probably shouldn't see one before levels 3-4 and PCs being knocked unconscious in such a fight should be fairly normal...Source Core Rulebook pg. 488 4.0
...
Severe-threat encounters are the hardest encounters most groups of characters can consistently defeat.
***************************************************
I've read that this is a split between those APs / adventures that were being written while PF2E was itself being written or playtested, and those that have come out at least a year after PF2E's publication.
The early stuff was balanced more around author's guesses based on PF1E experience, but after PF2E was out for some time, authors and testers have had more experience in judging things.
That said, this is just what I have seen noted, mostly by YouTubers covering PF2e.
I've not done the analysis myself.
I'm actually curious - if anyone has some of the early PF2E APs and some of the newer ones, is there a difference?
I'd also argue that 'consistently beat' is probably an overstatement of the typical party's chances of success.
|
|
I'd say "consistently beat" isn't far off the mark. PF2 is odd in that an encounter can feel really hard and yet you're very likely to win it.
Over the course of most of PFS, Age of Ashes and books 1-5 of Agents of Edgewatch I think we only were forced to retreat from one fight in book 2 of Age of Ashes because we were woefully unprepared for serious flying enemies.
|
I expect I'm not going to like the elf and kobold starting 3 hp down from average because of starting not only with 6 ancestry hp but also a flaw in con.
There is zero reason to start with a flaw in Con unless you want one or you’re operating under a house rule. Alternate Ancestry Boosts is a core rule, not an optional rule or variant.
Heaven help me if someone wants to play one of those ancestries as a front line combatant.
Heaven doesn’t need to help you, because Alternate Ancestry Boosts will. Just boost two physical ability scores and you’ll be in good shape.
|
|
I expect I'm not going to like the elf and kobold starting 3 hp down from average because of starting not only with 6 ancestry hp but also a flaw in con.There is zero reason to start with a flaw in Con unless you want one or you’re operating under a house rule. Alternate Ancestry Boosts is a core rule, not an optional rule or variant.
Heaven help me if someone wants to play one of those ancestries as a front line combatant.Heaven doesn’t need to help you, because Alternate Ancestry Boosts will. Just boost two physical ability scores and you’ll be in good shape.
Currently having the worst time figuring out if I want to take standard elf stats or alt stats on my Magus and whether to go dex or StR as a laughing shadow.
With standard elf I can basically ignore the +2 dex I need for medium armor and focus on StR and already for free boost int which lets me boost another skill like wis with my 4 free boosts.. otoh I could have a 12 con… but what difference does 1 HP make anyway?