| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
This is a useful maths. I like to add though that this is an analysis on XP budget which is not the difficulty of the encounter. Just the proxy based on the internal maths of the game. The designers meant for the game to be exponential in the way this analysis shows. That doesn't necessary mean that it is in practice.
1) The progression of the game is hardly smooth. There are big jumps and discontinuities. Like for example hit points from level 1 to level 2, and adding in the first striking rune to damage, but also the +2 proficiency jumps in attack values.
2) Early on PCs will not always have the right equipment and ability scores the game maths assumes.
3) The PCs will not always be fully rested and resourced before the encounter.
Definitely correct to point out if you are a GM that likes to have monsters set up to play optimally in favourable conditions - that you will kill PCs with Severe and Extreme encounters. Especially at level 1, but there are some other level breaks as well where an encounter might be a bit harder than you think.
All I'm trying to say is the XP based encounter budgets are way better than what we have ever had before. They are workable. Which quite frankly, in this problem domain, is a stunning improvement. They might even be close to the best possible. But they are not perfect.
The buffing and debuffing ability in PF2 even at low level is pretty reliably in the 3 to 4 range, not the 1 to 2 range. By higher levels it gets to the 5 or 6 range with consistency. It is the hit point variance that really makes fights against level +3 to +4 dangerous at low levels. High level monsters can hit hard and often have ways to attack multiple PCs at once, but once the debuffing starts, it stacks up fast and players can dish a lot of damage against a prone, frightened 2 creature.
Higher level solo bosses really need speed, terrain advantages or minions to make fights against a party interesting.
The level range is based on weighted average. Getting a 6 point swing vs an enemy that is level-4 while only getting at best a 4 point swing vs an enemy that is level+4. The level-4 encounter is dismissed because it was trivial in the first place. That leaves "how easy is it to get the swing vs a higher level enemy" and that is difficult.
The only way to consistently get a 4 is Bard and Fighter and those classes are universally considered the best classes in the game exactly because they break the game's math.
Treerazer, level 25 has a 54 AC.
If the party is level 20:
one ally flanks and aids (an automatic critical success with a master proficiency to attack is +3 to attack, -2 to TR's AC)
the fighter is:
+41 vs 52 AC
If someone casts heroism on the fighter before the fight (you are getting ready to fight a god, you are going all in)
then we are already at +44 vs 52 AC with no targeted/roll based debuff.
So we are looking at +8 with one roll that is not a natural 1. A -1 status penalty is not hard to land either with high level spells even on a success.
This might feel like a lot of "ifs" but all the high level play I have played or GMed sees PCs going all in against powerful solo bosses (which is what should happen in a level +4 fight).
Even against higher level foes it is rare to see martials making many first attacks that have less than 10-15% chance of critting. When high level casters are throwing the kitchen sink of debuffs at the enemy (including hastened slows for 2 spells in the first round), it is very difficult for the higher level enemy to stick around. They need to make the party waste a lot of actions quickly or they end up dead. I am not the only GM reporting this from actual play experience. At higher levels, the lower level enemies in large numbers are the bigger threat. High level enemies have many ways to do automatic damage or atleast half damage on successes to PCs. One or two PCs will have Evasion like (or better) saves vs the effect, but rarely is it many of them (casters especially don't get great saves and uncanny acumen only affects the proficieny).
I have had success running some level +3 and level +4 monsters vs high level PCs. The most fun encounter was more of a mid level one but still demonstrates the point: an Elite adult Red Dragon caster (15) and 2 young red dragons (10) vs a 11th level party. It was in a ruined city and the dragons did not engage up close. The party was way too melee focused and was having to run through the town hiding in buildings that would get blasted with fire.
The key to making it work was that the 15th level dragon didn't really want/care about killing the party, but was mostly interested in testing them and testing his two minions. There was a third faction the dragon was allied with only loosely and wanted to see if the heroes could be used as pawns to take out the other faction in exchange for leaving the dragon alone. The dragon had a lair of extreme elemental fire summoned in base of an exploded tower, so he could retreat to a place where the party was at an extreme disadvantage if they tried to press on, and they knew about the lair from a vignette adventure they in the past to see the events that created the lair (and test out the kineticist). With just the adult dragon, the PCs would have beaten it if it ever landed on the ground, and this is only at level 11. They managed to kill both young dragons while being blasted by the 15th level dragons breath and spells, but just barely and they were forced to retreat very quickly afterwards, but it was enough to get the adult dragon to make them an offer of non-aggression as long as they left him alone. The party still intends one day to come back and kill the dragon, and I will probably try to arrange that solo fight in the lair to be an even level encounter when it happens. (so moderate + unfavorable conditions) because the creature who is very difficult, but later becomes a 2 or 3 round kill makes the party really feel like their characters have grown a lot in power.
This is a useful maths. I like to add though that this is an analysis on XP budget which is not the difficulty of the encounter. Just the proxy based on the internal maths of the game. The designers meant for the game to be exponential in the way this analysis shows. That doesn't necessary mean that it is in practice.
1) The progression of the game is hardly smooth. There are big jumps and discontinuities. Like for example hit points from level 1 to level 2, and adding in the first striking rune to damage, but also the +2 proficiency jumps in attack values.
2) Early on PCs will not always have the right equipment and ability scores the game maths assumes.
3) The PCs will not always be fully rested and resourced before the encounter.
Definitely correct to point out if you are a GM that likes to have monsters set up to play optimally in favourable conditions - that you will kill PCs with Severe and Extreme encounters. Especially at level 1, but there are some other level breaks as well where an encounter might be a bit harder than you think.
All I'm trying to say is the XP based encounter budgets are way better than what we have ever had before. They are workable. Which quite frankly, in this problem domain, is a stunning improvement. They might even be close to the best possible. But they are not perfect.
Thanks for those words of caution. I guess I'll have to hit those "problem zones" at least once before getting the hang of it. Also, I think it'll be hard to unlearn basically 20+ years of the GM'ing style of 3.X/PF1E. ^^
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
PF2 math is such that you can use creatures as they are out of the book with very minor modifications based on party size and experience.
The basic creature math will provide a clear baseline. They are designed for 4 to 5 single class, non-optimized PCs of average experience.
So if you have a single CR2 creature it will be a fairly minor threat to 4 average PCs of level 2. If your party is experienced and optimized using rules like Free Archetype or Dual Class, then you'll have to modify encounters accordingly.
You'll also have to modify experience to maintain advancement rates if you have a party of more than 4 players with maybe dual class added. Free Archetype isn't too much of a power bump, so doesn't require as much modification. But Dual Class is a fairly big power bump because almost everyone ends up being to heal, buff, debuff, and the like. Fun for the players, but a little tougher for the DM.
But surprisingly the math still holds up against such a party. You should never have to modify basic attack and defense statistics in PF2. You can reliably take a troll CR 5 out of the book and put it against a level 2 to 7 Party only modifying number of creatures to make the enemy work well.
If a level 2 party against a troll, that's going to be a very tough fight, especially if no means to stop regeneration.
A level 7 party you can use trolls as minion level mobs and they'll carve up a whole group of them.
I've been DMing for 40 years now. This is the absolute best edition of a D&D/PF game I've never DMed in terms of ease of encounter design bar none. The math works very well. Modifications are minimal. CR 5 very much aligns well against the level range you would use for such a creature.
The main reason my group shifted to PF2 is the ease of DMing. Not only can I DM easier, but other players that haven't DM in years are stepping up to DM because of how well the math works.
I have a buddy that hasn't consistently played D&D since he was a teenager, roughly 30 plus years. He got back into PF2 as a player and enjoyed it. Now he is DMing and creating challenging encounters pulling creatures out of the Bestiary. He doesn't have to think about it too much. He can do the storytelling part he loves best, grab some creature that are CR equal to the players give or take a level or 2 depending ont he difficult of the encounter he wants and make the game feel challenging.
This is the easiest game to both be a player and a DM of any edition of D&D I've ever played other than maybe basic D&D way back when it first came out.
That is because the math is intuitive and experienced DMs will quickly learn how to modify encounter challenges for their parties based on experience and optional rules.
All I've had to modify to keep the game running smoothly are the following:
1. Mooks: Number of creatures because I usually run a 5 to 6 person party. So I boost number of creatures by 25 to 50% without modifying any creature statistics.
Or I may add the elite template to a few creatures.
2. Boss Monsters: I usually modify either hit points up by 25 to 50% or add lower CR minions depending on the capabilities of the creature and the size of the party.
If the enemy is a high CR caster, I like to add minions to create more targets to deal with.
If it is a single powerful melee creature mixed with other powers, then I like to boost hit points as the damage output of such creatures can be quite nutty.
3. Experience Points: Since the party size is larger and I'm using more monsters or more powerful higher CR monsters, I boost the experience required by an equivalent amount to maintain leveling speed when I'm not using milestone leveling.
In Kingmaker I'm counting experience, so I boosted the experience of a five person party using dual class from 1000 base experience a level to 1500. I added 25% for 5 party members and 25% for dual class power increase. That seems to have hit the right mark.
In summation, for anyone that switches over the ease of DMing is a huge plus. Preparation time is substantially less. Modifications are substantially less. The game works out of the box very well.
Main downsides is it takes a bit if coming from PF1 to get used to feeling "weaker" in PF2. Due to the PF2 math, you cannot build characters that wreck encounters solo. You are expected to work as a group and even a even CR monster might wreck a same level PC solo depending on level, magic items, and abilities.
Once you accept that your character will never be close to as strong as a PF1 PC, you'll see that the game is still very fun, makes working as a group the optimal way to play, and you can play more games because the preparation and DMing is so much easier. More people will be able to DM as the experience level required to DM is lower as is the need to modify encounters to make them challenging.
PF2 math is such that you can use creatures as they are out of the book with very minor modifications based on party size and experience.
The basic creature math will provide a clear baseline. They are designed for 4 to 5 single class, non-optimized PCs of average experience.
So if you have a single CR2 creature it will be a fairly minor threat to 4 average PCs of level 2. If your party is experienced and optimized using rules like Free Archetype or Dual Class, then you'll have to modify encounters accordingly.
You'll also have to modify experience to maintain advancement rates if you have a party of more than 4 players with maybe dual class added. Free Archetype isn't too much of a power bump, so doesn't require as much modification. But Dual Class is a fairly big power bump because almost everyone ends up being to heal, buff, debuff, and the like. Fun for the players, but a little tougher for the DM.
But surprisingly the math still holds up against such a party. You should never have to modify basic attack and defense statistics in PF2. You can reliably take a troll CR 5 out of the book and put it against a level 2 to 7 Party only modifying number of creatures to make the enemy work well.
If a level 2 party against a troll, that's going to be a very tough fight, especially if no means to stop regeneration.
A level 7 party you can use trolls as minion level mobs and they'll carve up a whole group of them.
I've been DMing for 40 years now. This is the absolute best edition of a D&D/PF game I've never DMed in terms of ease of encounter design bar none. The math works very well. Modifications are minimal. CR 5 very much aligns well against the level range you would use for such a creature.
The main reason my group shifted to PF2 is the ease of DMing. Not only can I DM easier, but other players that haven't DM in years are stepping up to DM because of how well the math works.
I have a buddy that hasn't consistently played D&D since he was a teenager, roughly 30 plus years. He got back...
Thank you, since the first group I'll GM 2E for will be non-standard size (5 players), properly modifying the encounters as given was something I have been fretting over for the last few days. This gives a few good guidelines.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this is a sprawling discussion of math and balance, but I notice that something very important to encounter design is absent:
Is the encounter fun or engaging?
As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilities
Without one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
Numbers 1 and 2 are especially important. When I'm creating an encounter, I make sure that the encounter matters beyond whether or not the PCs live or die. If you're going to be running a long campaign, you need to have ways for your PCs to 'lose' that does not involve a TPK and the campaign ending.
And even these rules are just guidelines, and the dice are a huge influence in the outcome of any fight.
Last week our party of Taldoran heroes (6 chars, 18th level) faced some devil's in an arena fight. 5 rounds of buffing before the fight, both parties made good use of that. A pit fiend, two apostate devils (elite), two cornugons (elite). Would be an extreme encounter for a rested party, but we'd already lost quite some resources in earlier encounters.
The dice rolled and the outcome was a walkover from our side. They started out with a meteor swarm and two fireballs that did hardly any damage. And from there it was downhill for them, even after a successful dominate from their side and the pit fiend just ignoring the prismatic sphere around him.
Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilitiesWithout one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
To be honest 1 and 2 are things that even Paizo doesn't add to most encounters because it's hard.
|
So, this is a sprawling discussion of math and balance, but I notice that something very important to encounter design is absent:
Is the encounter fun or engaging?
As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilitiesWithout one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
Numbers 1 and 2 are especially important. When I'm creating an encounter, I make sure that the encounter matters beyond whether or not the PCs live or die. If you're going to be running a long campaign, you need to have ways for your PCs to 'lose' that does not involve a TPK and the campaign ending.
These are important points to have engaging encounters.
But it's true that the aim of this thread is to make sure the fun encounter doesn't turn into an unwanted TPK for a GM who is new to PF2.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Thank you, since the first group I'll GM 2E for will be non-standard size (5 players), properly modifying the encounters as given was something I have been fretting over for the last few days. This gives a few good guidelines.Well, it's also not arcane knowledge which is only spread among chosen. For the most part it's all there:
Building Encounters
If you follow these avoiding extremes it's a very low chance something will go wrong. Then you adjust your encounters using your experience, style and combat readiness of your players. Things to look for also were mentioned: 3+ and 4+ creatures at low levels (and especially at level 4, because there's a stats bump at level 5 for characters and creatures at levels 5+ are accommodated to that).
Yeah, but someone explaining it well, instead of the often quite obtuse language used in the CRB, is still very helpful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilitiesWithout one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
First off, I'd say it's important for new players to recognize their enemies as active agents in the game's world, not simply blips to bop. Sure some are mindless or bestial, but I think it's important for players to recognize they are interacting, not simply rolling.
Players can parlay. Mercy might be rewarded. They might break enemy morale. For basic rules, I often run a sample, inconsequential battle to delineate it from those with ramifications.As for what interests them, the game's half tactics and half storytelling so it matters which appeals more to your co-writers, the players. This thread had only been addressing the former and the tools to balance the tactical side. Raiztt is introducing the other half, in which all of the elements of creative writing interweave into the battles, most specifically "make moments matter". Is this scene/combat deserving of screen time or page space? How interesting or memorable is it on its own or within the greater context?
In an RPG, events should have player choices that impact the story (even if subtly guided there), yet yes, with many players, perhaps especially the newer ones, there's also the emotional appeal of the wondrous, strange, terrifying, or just winning, yay! Setting, mood, intriguing ideas, events, and character-driven elements all can contribute. If you can seamlessly blend the tactical half and the narrative half, then kudos to you though published adventures have a give & take, what with XP quotas for leveling up, yet needing to deliver an impactful campaign w/ memorable NPCs. Also, players steer the ship somewhat, leaning into different interests. Some tables (especially those with little play time) will pare AP encounters down to the pivotal ones while others love conflict and tactical mastery, might even add combats, side plots, etc.
So yeah, encounter advice will vary by each player, and hopefully yours are enough in sync with each other and you that your recipe will resonate with all of them.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilitiesWithout one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
Only if teaching the players that they should be powergamers because that is all that will be rewarded.
Personally I wish we focused more on teaching the story telling, character building, and interactivity and response to the world and the other characters in it first - and went to battle mechanics second.
But that aside, yes with new players having simpler battles that don't involve as many moving parts and mechanics may be easier. But it can also be boring. Winning the battle by spending actions chopping down the rope and plank bridge that the enemies are on instead of chopping through the enemies can be a lot more entertaining - even for new players.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
So, this is a sprawling discussion of math and balance, but I notice that something very important to encounter design is absent:
Is the encounter fun or engaging?
As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilitiesWithout one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
Numbers 1 and 2 are especially important. When I'm creating an encounter, I make sure that the encounter matters beyond whether or not the PCs live or die. If you're going to be running a long campaign, you need to have ways for your PCs to 'lose' that does not involve a TPK and the campaign ending.
This is a very important question for all roleplaying games. And it fits the topic of this thread because the different threat categories have different emphasis that affect storytelling differently.
Castilliano's response above goes to the core:
As for what interests them, the game's half tactics and half storytelling so it matters which appeals more to your co-writers, the players. This thread had only been addressing the former and the tools to balance the tactical side. Raiztt is introducing the other half, in which all of the elements of creative writing interweave into the battles, most specifically "make moments matter". Is this scene/combat deserving of screen time or page space? How interesting or memorable is it on its own or within the greater context?
My goals as a GM are to create a story worth retelling and to let every player demonstrate that their character is awesome. The character could be awesome due to an endearing personality or from meaningful character growth, but combat is a chance to demonstrate awesomeness by EARNING victory.
In D&D and PF1, characters can win by being strong. That does not work in PF2 Moderate-Threat and tougher encounters. No character will win a Moderate-Threat encounter alone (except by unlikely good luck). PF2 requires teamwork. So the characters win by cooperating. Another thread had had a discussion about PF2 combat as a sport versus combat as war. The fun from PF2 combat as a sport is maximum when the combat is challenging. I also like to see the players invent new tactics or teamwork out of necessity due to the challenge.
For example, at 6th level the party ambushed a Beyond-Extreme-Threat enemy Ironfang army in an canyon. The rogue/sorcerer Sam relied on cantrips with a 30-foot range so he was only 10 feet up the canyon wall. The last order of enemy Captain Dargg before the archers killed him was, "Kill the wizard!" meaning the party druid Stormdancer who was throwing lightning bolts from ahead of the army on the floor of the canyon. Sam decided to confuse the army, cast a Produce Flame cantrip to demonstrate his magic, and declared with a good Deception check, "Fools, I am the wizard." This split the army with some advancing toward Sam and some still advancing toward Stormdancer. Some soldiers climbed 10 feet up to strike Sam. After those soldiers died, Sam was down to 2 hp. The party healer, the leshy sorcerer Honey, was next to Stormdancer. The monk Ren grabbed small Honey and ran across the battlefield to deliver Honey into range for a 2-action heal spell on Sam before enemy archers could attack him. I thought it was all wonderful, and the players had a great time trying stunts like that during the battle.
But the other fun is Raiztt'sw point of using the enemies as narrative elements. At 10th level, the party raided the Ironfang war-beast camp to stop the Ironfang Legion from using war beasts against Longshadow. The module Assault on Longshadow said, "[Hobgoblin hunter] Repral, the camp’s overseer, grew up in the Darklands deep below Molthune. She has an unnatural kinship with strange and terrible beasts, forged in her long period of survival in a monstrous realm." When I ported Repral to PF2 rules, I changed her class from PF1 hunter to PF2 cleric of Lamashtu rather than to PF2 ranger, because she was going to talk to the party. General Kosseruk had started the assault on Longshadow ahead of schedule, because the party was taking out all the war camps and Kosseruk realized the invasion was now or never. Repral's orders were to delay the party's return to Longshadow. The result of the conversation was that Repral released the human hostages she held and secretly allied with the party. The players had no combat at the war beast camp, but they advanced the story the way they wanted. And they picked up on the clues that the invasion had started. Due to the conversation, they trusted Repral to safely escort the humans to Longshadow in order to rush back themselves without the humans slowing them down. This was another flavor of fun for the players, that the character of their characters made new developments better.
Trivial-threat encounters give the players an opportunity to slow down. They will win, so they can take time to talk or try silly experimental tactics. Their enemies might clearly see that they are outmatched by the party, and beg for mercy and offer useful information to bargain for their lives, so the story advances in more than just victory.
Combat challenge is fun, but fun is not always about the challenge.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.Only if teaching the players that they should be powergamers because that is all that will be rewarded.
At the beginning of the game, the GM is learning as much as the players, even an experienced GM with new players. The GM is learning what kind of campaign the players like. If they want to powergame, then the GM can reward powergaming. If they want relaxed interactions, then the GM can set up friendly NPCs to support the party. If they want to be sneaky or deceptive, then the GM can invent heist missions. And so on.
When I began my Iron Gods campaign, Iron Gods among Scientists, I learned that my players were not in it to build powerful characters. Two of them created residents of the local town. The third made an exotic strix skald. Their main goal was to explore the interesting Numerian setting and play with the alien high technology in a fantasy setting. When we recruited a newbie as a fourth player, he was the kind of player who wanted to win, but as an engineer he was happy to win by mastering high technology. In the second module, Lords of Rust, the writer anticipated that the PCs might have different styles for entering the shantytown named Scrapwall.
When the PCs approach the entrance, they’re greeted by one of the Steel Hawks guards posted here. How the guards react to the PCs depends on how they present themselves. Five likely scenarios are detailed below—use these as inspiration for reactions to other, unanticipated approaches.
Crusaders: If the PCs look like crusaders or other obvious forces of good or law and present an air of wanting to “clean out Scrapwall,” they are told to turn around and leave—that Scrapwall has nothing for them. Depending on how the PCs react to this, they might be able to shift the reaction to the one described under Adventurers, below—or might incite the guards to attack.
Adventurers: This is the most likely assumption the guards make, as adventurers (or scavengers) often come to Scrapwall seeking opportunities. These groups are told that there’s nothing for them in Scrapwall, but if they’re looking for a place to live away from the strictures of society, they may find a new home inside. As long as the PCs don’t give the impression they’re here only to loot Scrapwall of anything valuable (in which case they face the same treatment as crusaders), they are instead treated as scoundrels.
Scoundrels: Most of those who come to Scrapwall are in this category—scoundrels seeking a place to call home. The guards ask potential immigrants to Scrapwall to keep their weapons stowed as they open the gate and then escort the newcomers to the Common Room (area B4) to answer a few questions from their commander.
Technic League: If the guards suspect the PCs are here representing the Technic League (this is unlikely unless the PCs make this bold claim themselves), they attack at once.
Members of a Scrapwall Gang: If the PCs attempt to pose as members of the Lords of Rust or another gang, they’ll need to attempt Bluff and Disguise checks opposed by the guards’ Sense Motive and Perception checks. If the PCs are successful, the Steel Hawks let the PCs in with no questions asked.
My players did not use any of the cover stories--Crusader, Adventurer, Scoundrel, Technic League, or Scrapwall Gang--suggested. They claimed to be refugees. They were archeologists who had run afoul of the anti-archeology Technic League and needed a place to hide until the heat was off. Scrapwall was perfect for that. They were not there to fight.
This was a PF1 game, but described in the PF2 Threat system, that mean that they would tackle only Trivial Threats, the random encounters that all residents of Scrapwall faced. I had to invent everyday life in Scrapwall to fill the time and they did high-tech household chores for Scrapwall resident Dinvaya Lanalei in exchange for room and board. Their toughest battle was a fistfight for fun at a local beer festival. But when word went out that a wild Rust Monster was spotted, they volunteered to pick up wooden weapons, defeat the Trivial Threat for their weaker neighbors, and pretend they were being brave in the act.
Gradually, the denizens of Scrapwall learned that their new neighbors were both helpful and stronger than the rest of them. They were asked to perform more dangerous favors for the needy, slowly earning xp to level up, and eventually had to defeat a Moderate-Threat band of ogres raiding Scrapwall and reveal enough strength to draw the attention of the Lords of Rust. But the players were not disappointed with the easy combat. It was all part of their plan.
My job was to follow their plan unless it conflicted with the underlying plot and setting.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Going to disagree with Mathmuse here on the scope of their own thread... I’m here for what the thread title says, advice on encounter balance, the math and the monsters. Mathmuse (and others) is(/are) doing a stellar job of presenting actual gameplay experience (which is also entertaining to read as vicarious consumption) as well as highly granular maths. I’m not here for discussions of alternate win/loss conditions, nor advice on how to make encounters engaging or enjoyable as that isn’t to me, germane to (EDIT: the math of) encounter balance. Sure, creating enjoyable encounters for my players is the prime goal, but still…
As a forever GM, I’m enjoying this thread because it is Mathmuse and other’s advice on creating and tweaking PF2e encounters on the fly or with studied preparation. I’m not particularly interested in the set dressing as it is a whole different beast, and almost as much in the players’s domain as it is in mine. Happy for someone to make a whole ‘nother thread for that! ;)
@Mathmuse: what impact does treasure/loot (particularly non-consumables, but talk to consumables too if you like) have on your encounters? I’m particularly interested in runes as I don’t really understand their…anything.
@Amyone else: same question, with particular attention to Paizo’s published PF2 scenarios and APs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think it's important to note that one can imbalance an encounter if there are narrative solutions or consequences. I'm reminded of the "combat as sport vs. war" spectrum debate which seeded this thread. That difference hinges on narrative more than math so narrative elements seem pretty pertinent to this thread as well. It's like the difference between white-room computation vs. bots and actual play with terrain & motivated agents (not to mention supply routes, traps, deception, etc.).
Also there's that thread about a month back where the GM was looking for advice re: a non-violent player in his group. After some of us described various ways to construct a campaign world/style where many battles could be resolved through alternate means, one poster chimed in how much they themselves would love such a game. Which of course would completely upend typical notions of PF2 combat & monstrous interactions, yet PF2 does have the tools for such encounters & obstacles.
I think it's important to note that one can imbalance an encounter if there are narrative solutions or consequences. I'm reminded of the "combat as sport vs. war" spectrum debate which seeded this thread. That difference hinges on narrative more than math so narrative elements seem pretty pertinent to this thread as well. It's like the difference between white-room computation vs. bots and actual play with terrain & motivated agents (not to mention supply routes, traps, deception, etc.).
Yep, I am well familiar with narrative elements rerouting assumptions - no plan survives contact with the enemy etc etc. And sure, these (narrative/maths) are inextricably linked and should be explored for the nascent GMs. I’m more, as a more experienced GM-just-not-of-PF2-and-trying-to-undo-PF1-mindsets interested in the white room fundamental math well before it reaches the players. Not dismissive of the rest, nor not cognisant of. Just want to understand the base math of PF2 a bit better.
TL;DR to get ahead of derailing the thread :(Ehrmagherd, yes I know one informs the other, and you need to account for blah blah blah etc…)
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
@Errenor: I’m interested in loot and consumables as another “toggle” or dial that can be/is manipulated in reference to encounter design and monster math. Mathmuse has addressed this topic in smaller detail in other threads particularly in porting PF1 AP’s to PF2 and adjusting loot.
So, what I'm understanding so far is that despite the encounter system being far more accurate than it was in 1E, encounters of the same nominal difficulty are still likely to be harder at low levels and easier at high levels.
Also, the model doesn't seem to be quite as accurate at each level. On paper, an 80XP encounter is Moderate no matter what level the PCs are. In practice, a level 1 party finds a Moderate encounter to be pretty spicy, while a level 18 party might not spend any real resources on it.I disagree on that. There are differences in the game dynamic between low and high level but it's not as simple as saying that low level fights are harder than high level fights.
In my Ironfang Invasion campaign, I was throwing a lot of Severe-Threat encounters at the party at 3rd through 12th levels and they could handle them. But later at 16th through 19th level (our current level) I noticed that they have been struggling more against Moderate-Threat encounters, so I have not used Severe Threat except for boss battles.
I didn't know the reason behind this weakness at the top lovels. I thought that it could be that they are well below the recommended gear, because the PCs keep giving their treasure away to civilians rather than selling it to buy better gear. Besides, where in Nirmathas could they buy 18th-level magic items?
Then I decided to write chronicles of their toughest battles to seek a common factor. And I found the common factor. The players heavily exploited the terrain in their greatest victories.
Let's start with an example from 3rd level. The five-member party was clearing evil xulgath cultists out of two levels of caves. A xulgath skulker on the upper level had hidden from the party and skulked away to warn the lower level. All the xulgath on the lower level united to form an Extreme Threat.
The party climbed down to the lower level, but before I could spring this battle on the party, they had a bad encounter with a Gelatinous Cube engulfing three PCs. That cost them half their hit points. I realized that the party was no longer in shape for an Extreme Threat, so I let the rogue who spoke Draconic listen at a door and overhear the xulgaths' prepartions to rush the party. The party retreated up the ladder to the upper level and the xulgath arrived in time to throw a spear at them.
That spear changed the party's attitude immediately. They realized that they had bows and the xulgath has spears. Spears had to be drawn, so the party could Strike at range twice as fast as the xulgath. One 2nd-level xulgath sorcerer also had spells, but was outmatched by the party's 3rd-level druid. The injured party had just half their hit points, but they could deal damage at twice the rate as their enemy. The PCs could also retreat from the cliff edge for cover but the xulgath lacked that option. The party focused fire to kill the skulker who tried climbing up the ladder.
The party won through tactical use of terrain.
Yet I would not have accounted for high-ground terrain in the evaluation of my intended encounter, because it was supposed to happen in another room.
But that aside, yes with new players having simpler battles that don't involve as many moving parts and mechanics may be easier. But it can also be boring. Winning the battle by spending actions chopping down the rope and plank bridge that the enemies are on instead of chopping through the enemies can be a lot more entertaining - even for new players.These kinds of things can be fun, but can also seem really contrived if used more than occasionally. It's the opposite problem to Tucker's Kobolds - rather than giving weak monsters a huge advantage from the environment, it's setting up the environment to give the PCs a clever gimmick to beat the enemies.
Now, when the players themselves come up with a plan like that, without the GM setting it up for them, that's much cooler, but you can't really plan on that as a GM, you've just got to be ready to roll with it.
Months later I retired my character and took over running the campaign. My wife explained that the Thistletop rope bridge was a trap that would collapse and dump the PCs into the sea. The goblins expected the bridge to break. The module says, "Originally, the goblins rigged the bridge so that it would fall completely into the water below, but when they tested it and realized that they’d stranded themselves on the island, they rebuilt the bridge so it would be easier to repair."
Terrain can be exploited by either side.
@Mathmuse: what impact does treasure/loot (particularly non-consumables, but talk to consumables too if you like) have on your encounters? I’m particularly interested in runes as I don’t really understand their…anything.
Ordinarily, I would be a terrible GM to ask about this. My players pass up loot. Because of their tactical skills, I regularly raise the challenge of their encounters. If they are short on level-appropriate gear, then they are weaker, so I don't raise the challenge as much. The result is that the degree of effort their characters have to put into winning is not affected by their gear. And they find looting enemy weapons and selling them to buy level-appropriate gear to be boring, especially the selling part. In the Ironfang Invasion adventure path, they do loot the enemy gear, but then they give the enchanted armor and weapons away for free to the people in the next village: "Here, these will help you defend your village from the Ironfang Legion."
However, this fits into the terrain topic. Gear is another element missed in the Encounter Budget rules. Well, it was not quite missed. Table 10-1: Encounter Budget in the PF2 Core Rulebook assumes that the GM and players are faithfully following Table 10-9: Party Treasure by Level or Table 10-10: Character Wealth. PF2 lacks encounter balance rules about the party having different gear than expected.
In fact, the game is downright restrictive about keeping some gear from the PCs. For example, the PF2 designers believe that flying is overpowered when used against ground-bound creatures with no ranged attacks. Seventh-level spellcasters have access to the Fly spell. So items that offer flight are above 7th level. Potion of Flying is item 8, Winged Boots is item 10, and Winged Rune for armor is item 13.
My recent insight is that both terrain and gear are combat resources. To my players a forest to hide in is as useful a resource for winning battles as a +1 striking greatsword. The forest is just less portable.
Thus, to truly determine encounter balance, we GMs should factor in combat resources, such as hiding places and enchanted weapons.
I can do it on a case by case basis by mathematics. When a fighter puts a striking rune on his favorite +1 greatsword, the damage increases from 1d12+4 (average 10.5) to 2d12+4 (average 17). 17/10.5 = 1.62, a 62% increase. If the fighter uses the sword for every Strike, that is a full 62% increase in his combat ability. If the fighter uses a bow half the time, then the 62% is cut in half to 31%. Either way, it is a massive improvement. And if ine member in a four-person party gets a 62% improvement, then the party is 15% better. (80xp)(1.15) = 92xp, so to get the same difficulty as the former 80xp Moderate-Threat encounter will need a 92xp encounter in the future.
Other cases are harder to judge. What is the value of the 10 minutes of invisibility from a Cloak of Elvenkind? In the 1st module Aubrin the Green, mentor of ranger Zinfandel, lent 2nd-level Zinfandel her Cloak of Elvenkind and later the gift became permanent. (I ignore level restrictions because some items are cool.) And two game sessions ago 19th-level Zinfandel used that very same cloak to sneak into the final location in the adventure path, the Onyx Citadel. Zinfandel usually used the invisibility for scouting, not directly in combat, but the scouting led to more effective tactics that won battles.
Back to the greatsword's striking rune, a 4th-level item. In a party that just leveled up to 4th level, they probably don't have a striking rune. At the end of 4th level, before leveling up to 5th, they probably do have a striking rune, which by my calculations makes them 15% better. Yet they are still 4th level. And both an 80xp and a 92xp encounter count as Moderate Threat. We need more than a 15% difference to change one threat category to another. the dividing line between Moderate Threat and Severe Threat is 100 xp, which is 25% above 80 xp. We would need two missing pieces of critical gear to change the threat category.
But that is not all that different from the fighter missing hit points and the wizard have expended spells. It falls under readiness, If the party is missing significant gear, spells, or hit points, then it is not fully ready and cannot handle the hardest threat categories. On the other side of the coin, the right gear, such as a ghost-touch rune against a specter, or good terrain for an ambush, can make the party especially ready. And in the 3rd-level example in the xulgath caves, the two effects canceled each other out. At this time, I have no way of putting numbers to that, but I do have a gut feeling from GM experience.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The actual rules for party adjustments is very very easy
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497
Table 10-1 shows the character adjustment as a table of how much to increase the XP budget over the four player baseline for each threat difficulty.
But if you examine the table you notice something very very simple, the character adjustment is nothing but the XP budget divided by 4 in all cases. There is zero need to reference this adjustment table during encounter building, just remember that the budget XP is ratioed against the four player reference.
2 players divided by 4 is 2/4th is 0.50x the baseline XP budget
3 players divided by 4 is 3/4th is 0.75x the baseline XP budget.
4 players divided by 4 is 4/4th is 1.00x the baseline XP budget.
5 players divided by 4 is 5/4th is 1.25x the baseline XP budget.
6 players divided by 4 is 6/4th is 1.50x the baseline XP budget.While you increase the XP budget for the larger numbers of players - the rewarded XP is always the baseline XP not the budget XP. While you could instead adjust the 1000XP level-up (i.e. 5 PC is 1250XP) you would have to remember to adjust exploration, social, quest XP by that ratio as well.
Now you can also notice a ratio pattern in that same table, so once you learn the ratio pattern you realize you do not even need to ref the table anymore.
Low/Trivial =60/40 = 3/2 = 1.50x
Moderate/Low = 80/60 = 4/3 = 1.33x
Severe/Moderate = 120/80 = 3/2 = 1.50x
Extreme/Severe = 160/120 = 4/3 = 1.33xAnd you will see the same ratio 3/2, 4/3 pattern in the Table 10-2 creature XP, so without whipping out a spreadsheet, you realize you just need to ratio the lackey counts (though adjusting boss level is more risky). Once you see the pattern you realize how easy it is to adjust on the fly to changing table circumstances (over/under leveled/skilled/staffed)
If you have a party of three you could do all that math, or just realize from the ratios that the answer is to change the Moderate XP budget to...
Thank you, that was also very thorough and the explanation at the end also was very helpful. Yeah, I plan to be extra careful at the lower levels, when the players are still completely new to the system.
The treasure/loot question is a complicated one. A lot of folks like Automatic bonus progression to bypass the issue, but I don’t really feel like it is a fully thought out variant rule. If GMs use it and cut back on gold, it heavily favors martial players. Additionally it makes it more difficult as a GM to use treasure as a flexible tool for rewarding parties mid level and sometimes even early if they might really need it.
At the very least you need to make sure you are giving your casters an opportunity to find copious amounts of consumable spell items early and staves useful to them.
APB complicates reward giving and can lead to level plateauing, where only leveling up feels like character growth.
I love it when PCs eschew gold rewards as a GM, and give away gold for narrative fulfilling projects. One way you can help balance that back out if players seem intent on doing it to the point of falling behind, is to let karma pay it forward in more interesting ways.
If the champion is giving away gold enough that the armor or weapon or shield is falling behind, having them wake up one morning with a more powerful rune inscribed on their old one, or getting access to an uncommon or rare thing as a result can make them feel more connected to the game and the narrative in play. Don’t make it an exact one to one exchange, and let their be periods of struggle/being behind but then sometimes even consider boosting them up half a level to a level on the divine/narrative upgrade so it will last a while. This can work especially well with those runes that have static DCs that no one wants to buy, but getting one a level or 2 early can make it fun to use for a while before it changes or is given away again in the future. This might feel like APB, but the difference is that it only kicks in when it is really earned and it lets you be the cool GM that gives especially potent toys when players earn it.
It doesn’t have to be divine intervention either. NPCs can have special gifts of their time and skills that can help fulfill this role as well
Thanks Mathmuse for the discussion on runes and potency thereof.
@Unicore: I do have a deep and abiding aversion to ABP so thank you for those thoughts.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Items seem pretty easy to categorize:
Required to meet expected math items:
Potency and weapon striking runes
Armor potency and resilient runes
Apex items
Desirable items but you won't notice if you don't have them:
Skill boosting items
Additional casting items
Bookkeeping items
Magic carrying items
Magic food and drink items
Healing items
Items that make you go "Meh"
Just about everything else: Use them if you want them, but if you sell them all or forget about them you won't really notice.
I'm not even going to pretend magic items are that great in PF2. If my players have one big complaint about PF2, it is the boring magic items. I've taken to customizing magic items more often to make them more interesting. I highly recommend tailoring magic items to players needs and wants to make them seem cool and desirable.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I don't know about that last one. Treasure Vault had a lot of pretty cool items. Anyway, just a comment, I don't want to derail this interesting thread.
I don't know about that last one. Treasure Vault had a lot of pretty cool items. Anyway, just a comment, I don't want to derail this interesting thread.
I'm trying to illustrate that there are items you need to meet the expected math. A martial without striking runes would be utterly pathetic. Even a fighter using a regular sword would be far worse than a guard of equal level with minimal feats using an appropriate level striking weapon.
Then there are items that are desirable that improve mathematical probability like an Athletics enhancing skill item that improves the chance to trip or grapple, which can be very nice.
I did see some improvements to alchemists in the Treasure Vault that improved the math of Alchemy.
In general items are kind of lackluster when it comes to making you feel more powerful. All the stat enhancing items are gone. Fortification type of armor is weak. Energy resistance is fairly weak. There is no real immunity items. You won't find items like you found in PF1 to really make you feel crazy powerful.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Spell casters are expected to get items that give them more spells to cast, especially at higher levels. If they don’t, the low number of spells per day is a massive set back to their power level. It is why APB is a dangerous variant rule to implement. The exact number of extra spells gained through items is not as static a number as fundamental runes, and consumables intentionally make it flexible whether the spell needs to be used at all in a day, but casters who spend all their gold on weapon runes or armor runes, etc, fall behind on spells to cast per day, especially in longer encounter days.
At a minimum a staff is 1 additional top spell or top rank -1 spell and a first level spell a day. And by higher levels you might have a couple of top level -2 or -3 wands, but if you aggressively spend money on scrolls you can have double your number of top level daily spells every couple of full adventuring days, especially for classes like wave casters and psychics.
My take on items is that, aside from the mandatory weapon, armor and eventual apex, you want:
speed (boots of bounding+longstrider wand)
flight (soaring wings tattoo)
perception (goggles of night or blood slash)
Skill boosters (lowest priority)
There are a few decent items here and there like the cassian helmet, a see invis wand, illusion staff and phantasmal doorknob for example.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
In general items are kind of lackluster when it comes to making you feel more powerful. All the stat enhancing items are gone. Fortification type of armor is weak. Energy resistance is fairly weak. There is no real immunity items. You won't find items like you found in PF1 to really make you feel crazy powerful.
And that is caused by striving for built-in balance. If magic items made characters noticeably more powerful, then the math of encounter balance would be off because the rulebook does not know whether the character has powerful items.
The runes that let weapons deal more damage, such as a striking rune or a flaming rune, are noticeably powerful. So we GMs need to get them into the hands of the martial PCs at predictable levels so that the power of the PC follows the expected curve for power balance.
Anyway, just a comment, I don't want to derail this interesting thread.
Judging whether the PCs are above or below the expected power is directly relevant to encounter balance. Unfortunately, I don't have a formula for how to adjust the encounter if the PCs is underequipped or overequipped. The only balanced solution I know is to give the party the expected type of gear and hope that they use it. Or offer substitute gear that seems to offer the same degree of power.
I have a few suggestions for getting the right runes into the PCs' hands. Ask them after a game session what treasure they would like. If it is balanced, then put that treasure into an upcoming treasure trove. Put the weapons that you want the party to use in the hands of the next sub-boss who is above the party's level. Then the weapon feels like a trophy.
When the party is in a city market that sells magic items, don't wait for them to seek out a magic shop. Have hawkers in the street actively selling their wares, "Wands, wands, why prepare a spell every morning when you can have it on a wand? Look at this beauty, wand of Floating Disk. It will pay for itself in the extra treasure you haul home. Only 60 gold pieces."
I had a problem in Ironfang Invasion that at first the party had only one martial character, the ranger. The druid and two rogues could not use the +1 martial weapons looted off the Ironfang patrols. The druid shrugged and said that she did not use weapons anyway, but the rogues were stuck without +1 weapon potency runes at 2nd level. Fortunately, at 3rd level a champion who had studied Magical Crafting joined the party. She could transfer runes. Oh, except that transferring runes cost 10% the value of the rune. My players and I wanted the verisimilitude that that meant buying magical reagents for the transfer, which was not possible while the party was in the forest. So I let them make Survival checks to find magical plants that naturally contained the right reagents. Paizo clarified that only characters who learned Magical Crafting could transfer runes, but if the party has no-one with Magical Crafting, then ignore this restriction.
Finally, if a PCs is missing several important magic items, then offering one over-level magic item that the PC will love is easier than giving them each individual missing item. A useful magic item of a higher level than the character does feel powerful. The champion did not care much about her weapon or armor, but she did like finding a Sturdy Shield above her level for more effective shield blocking. The excellent shield blocking balanced out the deficient Armor Class.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Energy resistance is fairly weak.
On that I think you make a mistake. In my opinion, Energy resistance is part of the "math". High level spells tend to add a bunch of extra damage dice that are negated by Energy resistance items. If you properly use energy resistance items spell damage tend to grow linearly, otherwise it grows slightly exponentially.
Energy resistance is fairly weak.On that I think you make a mistake. In my opinion, Energy resistance is part of the "math". High level spells tend to add a bunch of extra damage dice that are negated by Energy resistance items. If you properly use energy resistance items spell damage tend to grow linearly, otherwise it grows slightly exponentially.
Yeah, I think Energy Aegis implies this.
It's not just the AoEs, but the bonus damage on many Strikes & Persistent Damage too. Same could be said for Poison Resistance if one doesn't have Juggernaut, like a front line Rogue or Swashbuckler.
To be honest 1 and 2 are things that even Paizo doesn't add to most encounters because it's hard.
Definitely - I don't blame them. It would make their modules/adventures much longer and more complicated.
Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.
I mean, I wouldn't take that as like THE definitive word - lots of people enjoy lots of different things of various degrees of complexity. The first two are probably less important for MOST gamers than the other ones though.
My take on items is that, aside from the mandatory weapon, armor and eventual apex, you want:
speed (boots of bounding+longstrider wand)
flight (soaring wings tattoo)
perception (goggles of night or blood slash)
Skill boosters (lowest priority)There are a few decent items here and there like the cassian helmet, a see invis wand, illusion staff and phantasmal doorknob for example.
I forgot the mobility items under desirable items. Mobility items are helpful to action economy.
Does this hold for new players? I haven't had the chance to teach the game, but I imagine that learning the mechanics and basic strategy will be engaging enough early on that GMs can put less emphasis on giving enemies personality or varying the environment.As a DM of almost 20 years, I can say that after you've figured out your math you've still got several important things to consider:
1.) Enemy motivation/goals - Alternate Lose Conditions
2.) Player motivations/goals - Alternate Win Conditions
3.) Unusual or impactful terrain
4.) Interactables
5.) Diverse enemy types/abilitiesWithout one or more of these elements, no matter how perfectly tuned your encounter is, it will be boring.
Familiarizing yourself with the rules is important and useful, but I've seen more successful games that focus on charm at the expense of rules accuracy than I have games that hew tightly to rules accuracy at the expense of flavor, so while the individual priorities matter I think keep motivations and goals and other secondary features in mind are pretty important.
You'll also have to modify experience to maintain advancement rates if you have a party of more than 4 players with maybe dual class added. Free Archetype isn't too much of a power bump, so doesn't require as much modification. But Dual Class is a fairly big power bump because almost everyone ends up being to heal, buff, debuff, and the like. Fun for the players, but a little tougher for the DM.
But surprisingly the math still holds up against such a party. You should never have to modify basic attack and defense statistics in PF2. You can reliably take a troll CR 5 out of the book and put it against a level 2 to 7 Party only modifying number of creatures to make the enemy work well.
Thank you, since the first group I'll GM 2E for will be non-standard size (5 players), properly modifying the encounters as given was something I have been fretting over for the last few days. This gives a few good guidelines.
The actual rules for party adjustments is very very easy
https://2e.aonprd.com/Rules.aspx?ID=497
Table 10-1 shows the character adjustment as a table of how much to increase the XP budget over the four player baseline for each threat difficulty.
But if you examine the table you notice something very very simple, the character adjustment is nothing but the XP budget divided by 4 in all cases. There is zero need to reference this adjustment table during encounter building, just remember that the budget XP is ratioed against the four player reference.
2 players divided by 4 is 2/4th is 0.50x the baseline XP budget
3 players divided by 4 is 3/4th is 0.75x the baseline XP budget.
4 players divided by 4 is 4/4th is 1.00x the baseline XP budget.
5 players divided by 4 is 5/4th is 1.25x the baseline XP budget.
6 players divided by 4 is 6/4th is 1.50x the baseline XP budget.While you increase the XP budget for the larger numbers of players - the rewarded XP is always the baseline XP not the budget XP. While you could instead adjust the 1000XP level-up (i.e. 5 PC is 1250XP) you would have to remember to adjust exploration, social, quest XP by that ratio as well. ...
I have twice answered questions in this forum about calculating the rewarded XP when the XP budget is altered for a non-four party. I should repeat that answer here.
For a five-person party, we multiply the usual encounter budget by 5/4. Trivial Threat budget is 50xp, Low Threat budget is 75xp, Moderate Threat budget is 100xp, Severe Threat budget is 150xp, and Extreme Threat budget is 200xp. Yet the XP reward is unchanged: each PCs gains 40xp for trivial, 60xp for low, 80xp for moderate, 120xp for severe, and 160xp for extreme. But people asked, "What if the encounter budget is not one of those numbers?" Well, then we take the inverse of 5/4, which is 4/5, and multiply by XP budget by that number in order to get the XP reward.
I myself have seven players in my campaign. After Friday's game session I calculated the xp reward for the 7-member 19th-level party as: "You defeated 1 witcheater cultist creature 15, 3 honor guards creature 17, and Henra creature 17. (4/7)(4(20)+10) = (4/7)(90) = 51 xp." They haven't finished the 2nd encounter yet so have not earned xp for it--more on that later.
I also have two words of warning about encounter balance of non-four parties, one word for undersized groups and one word for oversized groups. Four is the optimal size for Pathfinder adventures.
Undersized parties might miss niches or teamwork opportunities due to a scarcity of people. For an example of a niche, it could lack a party healer. In my PF1 Iron Gods campaign the three-member party was missing a heavy hitter, so they recruited an NPC bloodrager and when a 4th player joined, they asked him to play a fighter. A missing teamwork opportunity would be that the rogue will have more trouble finding a flanking partner out of only two teammates rather than three, and a bard would enhance fewer teammates. These deficiencies could make the party weaker than expected.
PF2 has versatility to make up for uncovered niches; for example, a PC with Battle Medicine skill feat can substitute for a class with healing spells. This is only theory to me, because I have not run an undersized party in PF2 yet.
I have run an oversized party in PF2. My PF2-converted Ironfang Invasion campaign started with 4 players, grew to 5, and then to 7. The risk with an oversized party is that they can handle a lot more xp in enemies, but the PCs in the party are individually no stornger. If the enemies gang up on one PC, then that PC is in trouble. This is especially likely with a single high-level opponent, due to their action economy being a few very powerful attacks.
The second encounter in my Friday game session is a serious example of focused high-level damage. The 19th-level party is fighting a 23rd-level avatar of the god Hadregash. A 23rd-level enemy is 160xp, but against a 7-member party Moderate Threat is (7/4)(80xp) = 140xp and Severe Threat is (7/4)(120xp) = 210 xp, so Hadregash is between a Moderate Threat and a Severe Threat, closer to Moderate. However, Hadregash particularly wants to kill the leshy sorcerer Twining Gold-Flame Honeysuckle Vine, so he has focused his attacks on her. Honey counts as a baby godling who is not yet immortal, and Hadregash sees her as an annoying upstart.
On his first turn, Hadregash had to Stride twice to Honey so had only one Strike, a critical hit for 94 damage. On his second turn, he was within reach so he made one Strike, another crit, for 100 damage, but the party champion used Liberating Step to prevent some damage and move Honey out of reach. So Hadregash switched to Fire Ray, another crit for 170 damage. The champion absorbed that damage with Champion's Sacrifice. Honey has only 204 hit points. The champion has 294 hit points, and afterwards the monk used Battle Medicine on the champion to restore 50 hp. Finally, before we quit for the night, Honey cast Regenerate on herself immediately afterwards, so she currently cannot be killed except by a final Fire Ray. The party is very good about defending each other, so I was willing to risk this battle, but it feels a lot more brutal than Moderate Threat. Hadregash is down to 315 hp out of 570 hp.
|
It can be tricky at first how to scale a solo boss for more players, without some undesirable outcome:
- the boss is now so high level, nobody can hit them anymore
- we added more minions, so now it doesn't feel very solo anymore
I think the answer is hazards and terrain. A solo boss with some extra hazards that suck up PC action economy, is still a solo boss. And doesn't need super high stats to compensate for all that PC action economy.
It can be tricky at first how to scale a solo boss for more players, without some undesirable outcome:
- the boss is now so high level, nobody can hit them anymore
- we added more minions, so now it doesn't feel very solo anymoreI think the answer is hazards and terrain. A solo boss with some extra hazards that suck up PC action economy, is still a solo boss. And doesn't need super high stats to compensate for all that PC action economy.
I like hit point increases myself so they last longer, given boss damage output is already set very high. And as Mathmuse pointed out, individual PCs are no stronger in higher level parties, so boss level damage will still level them if it crits or unloads on a single PC.
I also like adding a minion level enemy for the overflow characters to handle. It's almost like an extension of the boss able to do damage with its own set of actions rather than trying to add actions to the boss. I view it as a way to add capability to a solo boss without having to modify the solo boss in an unusual way for actions and stats.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm leaning more and more to stresstesting the encounters I will run for my 5 players group. Luckily tools like Pathbuilder make it easy to get test characters where I need them to be.
I'm leaning more and more to stresstesting the encounters I will run for my 5 players group. Luckily tools like Pathbuilder make it easy to get test characters where I need them to be.
That sounds like stress-testing the GM.
The more creatures I run in combat, the less I can think about tactics. Splitting my attention to keep mental notes on each foe (this one has drawn their weapon, but this one hasn't, ...) reduces my IQ down to double digits. And while I typically run two different kinds of foes in an encounter, such as a leader and several minions, sometimes I foolishly put three kinds of foes together and find myself having to repeatedly look up their stats because I cannot retain three sets reliably. (Supposedly the Roll20 VTT can support this for me, but then I would have to enter the character sheets into the VTT.)
Running five different PCs and one kind of foes would be slow motion, writing down every step just not to lose track. I sometimes do that for theorycrafting, but even in that case I look for shortcuts.
And since my players are tactical masterminds, I won't be as clever as them in tactics, anyway. Why did I marry a genius gamer girl? The sorcerer Honey and the champion Tikti are played by our two daughters, who have been gaming since before they could read, so they have decades of practice in coordinating their characters together.
My system is to start the PCs with easier battles at the beginning of the campaign. Once they learn to work together, I see what they can handle and I raise the difficulty. If I plan of throwing a new kind of monster at them, such as their first incorporeal opponent, then I often throw an easy version of that weird monster at them for practice before throwing a boss-level weird monster at them. This gives both of us experience with the new mechanic.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I would never want to discourage any form of playtesting PF2, especially your encounter design, but be aware, even if you test encounters with exactly the same party composition as your players, tactical choices make such a big difference in encounter difficulty, and RNG can make such big swings that anecdotal experience can be misleading.
How dangerous is a single black pudding to a 5th level party of 4? Well that is going to largely depend on how many times the party attacks it with slashing and piercing weapons before realizing how big a mistake that is. Or if the party crit fails recall knowledge rolls against a new kind of golem and is healing it and attacking with low damage attacks.
I think one of the more important “playtestings” a GM can do is actually some relatively low threat encounters with their party early on, especially with players coming straight out of PF1. Those players are going to have a bunch of tactical expectations that can get them into trouble, even against enemies they might otherwise be readily able to handle. Many PF1 parties are looking to have a tank move into position locking down an enemy, but that can turn things into a bad situation, especially if the tank doesn’t have a shield and doesn’t have an attack of opportunity. Even if they have both it can still go badly, especially without support. Spells take time to learn as well and can be frustrating at first, especially without knowing anything about your enemy. Trying do the same thing in every encounter tends to get parties in trouble sooner than later.
Well, for me it is mostly trying to learn the system myself, since I am very new at it and I can already see that I need to cross-reference rules at least twice per turn. That's never much fun for everybody involved, since I am then frantically leafing through the rules and the players need to wait until I find what I'm looking for. It can only help me achieve a decent degree of system mastery to run some trial encounters before I start GM'ing 2E.
The group of test characters I've put together has nothing to do with what characters will end up in the real party... those characters haven't even been thought up by my players yet, given that the other GM will probably run Strange Aeons for another year at least. I've just put together a basic five characters party, a Cleric, Rogue, Sorcerer, Bard and Redeemer Champion.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Well, for me it is mostly trying to learn the system myself, since I am very new at it and I can already see that I need to cross-reference rules at least twice per turn. That's never much fun for everybody involved, since I am then frantically leafing through the rules and the players need to wait until I find what I'm looking for. It can only help me achieve a decent degree of system mastery to run some trial encounters before I start GM'ing 2E.
The group of test characters I've put together has nothing to do with what characters will end up in the real party... those characters haven't even been thought up by my players yet, given that the other GM will probably run Strange Aeons for another year at least. I've just put together a basic five characters party, a Cleric, Rogue, Sorcerer, Bard and Redeemer Champion.
Sounds like being a player in a few PFS games could help you gather a better understanding of which rules are usually most relevant during encounters.
Sounds like being a player in a few PFS games could help you gather a better understanding of which rules are usually most relevant during encounters.
Probably. I'll look into that if there are PFS games in Hamburg.